Are you serious? Why should that steel bend? Assuming you put 1000N (~100kg) of force, the beam is 18x40mm, the pan is 300mm in diameter and assuming you apply the force in the middle, that's only about 20-30MPa of stress. That steel could be weakened to 10% of its strength and still not bend. Steel can take between 200-1000MPa.
@ZhugeNaut with or without fireproofing, heat weakened steel and localized structural damage don't cause buildings to collapse in the manner that WTC 1, 2 and 7 did. why didnt NIST test the steel for explosives residue? do you really believe that it would be impossible for investigators to distinguish between typical building materials and explosives? thats one of the weak excuse NIST would like you to accept... i assume you've read their FAQs page, right?
Once you concede that the fire had an effect on the steel you cant say what effect it would have.unless you duplicate the experiment exactly as it happened.
Not stacking trays, not burning pots.
I am not much of a fan of the govt story, but I am a Nyer. Ive studied this matter. I am not going to pretend as if I know who did it, but i smell a rat.
This is a red herring. Everyone is stuck on how it was done. The ramifications of the event continue today.
@ZhugeNaut i've been in construction most my life and i'm no kid. i can say, without hesitating, that steel and concrete framed buildings do not collapse in the manner WTC 1, 2 and 7 did without the assistance of explosives. i suggest you check out NIST's excuses as to why they "chose" not to test the steel for explosives residue: wtc dot nist dot gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006 dot htm
@ZhugeNaut how much is a lot? during my career in construction, i spent nearly 10 yrs as an A+B licensed on-site supervisor in the gas and oil industry. you can trust that i've considered it thoroughly (or not). the buildings designer actually said that the buildings could withstand up to 2 airliner impacts and remain standing. you dont have to duplicate the exact same conditions to say that this event couldn't happen the way it's been suggested. it matters cause someone had to be on the inside
I am pretty certain they did not need explosives in the building. floors collapsing,....yea floors collapsing, debris and bodies hitting cars were called explosions that day.
Not bombs. Explosion is just a sound..
I doubt the people that planned that expected the buildings to fall the way they did. It is not likely.
Not that I think they care about the people, but it made a huge mess in the financial center of the world.
They even lied to ppl and told them it was safe to get help cleaning
@ZhugeNaut yep, floors did collapse and some steel probably weakened too but i didnt say anything about explosions (which were reported by many witnesses), i said NIST did not test for explosives residue.
i doubt that plane impacts, localized structural damage and office can completely destroy 3 buildings (super-structures) on the same day... especially when one of them wasn't even hit by a plane.
ever consider that part of the plan was to make a huge mess in the financial center of the world?
@ZhugeNaut believe it or not, i believed the official story about how the buildings collapsed until i actually looked at the evidence for myself. like i said earlier in this conversation, i spent most of my life in the construction industry and nearly 10 yrs of it in gas and oil construction (Google: A+B Licensed On Site Supervisor and look up the qualifications needed for acquiring that license). i'll look at your playlist but it's quite likely i've already seen and considered the info.
Newtons Third Law is all the evidence needed to prove controlled demolition of WTC 1 and 2.
NIST knows this. this is why NIST chose to stand down.
NIST admits their report
"... does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower" after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached ... ."
NIST - 2005
the time for a CRIMINAL investigation is seven years overdue. it is long overdue for criminal charges to be brought against those responsible for murder of nearly 3,000 people.
Explanation3) Praise be Allah! (hijacked personal belief systems). Raise an islamist militant, give him technology and a little manure, then put on your goggles, jump behind a barricade, and watch the laws of physics in action! If you had a stonger belief in the righteousness of killing for a dogmatic wet dream, you'd be too busy studying your aviation manual to be farting around making youtube videos with broomsticks and skillets in your driveway.
Explanation2) Fire. The fires in the towers weren't on the rooftops, they were inside several acres of those buildings. Instead of an open skillet, take a barbecue grill, cover it, fill it with newspaper and superballs, and fill the grill about a half gallon of kerosene. Use a fan or a bellows to blow air into the covered grill through holes on both sides. Put a stronger metal rod in there and cook it for an hour, then apply about 500lbs of pressure or torque and watch it bend like taffy!
Explanation1) Physics. The jets hit at speeds between 450-600mph, and a 757's a big heavy beast. Storm winds at 100mph will send a 2x4 through a dense treestump. No matter how hard I throw a 2x4 at a treestump I won't be able to puncture the tree, but a 400,000lb chunk of aluminum at half the speed of sound will shear anything in its path. Lightly pressing down on a hot piece of metal in your driveway with a broomstick won't exactly duplicate this scenario but it's an excellent first experiment.
Also, a 757 isn't made out of tinfoil or cast aluminum - it's a high strength alloy. Take for instance anodized aluminum; try to cut a calphalon pan with a steel knife. Shoot it with a bullet. This is what I'm talking about.
Have you seen the images of this plane apparently gliding into the building? They might be genuine, like the sun might not rise tomorrow, but shouldn't we look at the probabilty that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that the images are fake? In the end, if it's crimes we're looking for there are far bigger and far less arguable ones that followed 2001, but the dimensions of this ongoing psyop that is '9/11' are too fascinating and too important to ignore. That's my position.
ALITL you've gotta be fucking kidding me....first of all theres is zero substance to this video because you could make it what you wanted in your own environment.........and second , since when do you weigh as much as the world trade center? (providing you were even pressing down at all)
well i just gave you the layman's example of less than 1/8 inch thick "galvanized" steel and ALUMINUM foil not being weakened or distorted buy ACTUAL fire.
they lied and are still lying. youre FREE to believe whatever you'd like but with my knowledge of fuel, fire and building, i'm not buying it! i used to be on your side believe it or not... then i started thinking and researching for myself.
But your research provides little answers. A fire in a pan pales in compairison to 10k gallons of JP 8 a commercial airliner and the WTC. You're not thinking for yourself, you're buying into what the truthers are saying.
JP 8? Jet A-1 is the most commonly used fuel in "commercial" aircraft. either way jet fuel only burns at or near 549.5 degrees in an open air environment. not to mention that even the official reports tell us that the "majority" of that fuel was burned up in the explosion. as far as what i believe, it was reading the official reports that made me question their story.
I actually know a good bit about fuel and fire... built service stations for 10 yrs
Galicgalen said in PM: I concede to the fact that Jet- A1 is the more commonly used Jet fuel. Around 81 billion gallons a year of Jet-A1 are consumed. If you want to go knowledge about Jet fuel, then on guard. I hold an Air BP quality control cert. I hold a Hazwoper cert. I hold fueling training certs for: Mesa Airlines Skywest Airlines United Frontier Alaska I also hold GA training certs. Alas, I hold a pilots license. Dont be shy Galicgalen... Alas, I have credentials too :o)
ALITL you've gotta be fucking kidding me....first of all theres is zero substance to this video because you could make it what you wanted in your own environment.........and second , since when do you weigh as much as the world trade center? (providing you were even pressing down at all)
you're right, i could create my own environment by adding oxygen (air) to the fire, making it burn much hotter and you're right, i don't weigh as much as the world trade center buildings (thanks for noticing) and you're right once again, maybe i didn't press down.
what exactly is your point? aluminum foil and "galvanized" steel dont compare to the construction grade materials that went into those buildings either...
so you really are proving nothing here......its incredibly inaccurate even if the steel you are using is weaker. It has almost no similarity to how the events happened
the steel i used is incredibly weaker than the steel used in the WTC buildings, the fire's temperature is actually quite similar in the fact that its a kerosene/diesel fire in an "open air" environment.
jet fuel had no effect on the temperature of the fires and office fires dont cause complete catastrophic failure of steel buildings.
it's really that simple but since i've already addressed this topic at least 3 times since posting these videos, i'll let you go read whats already been said.
what about how steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees?....how hot was your "fire"? the highest temperatures in the WTC got to 1800 degrees...hot enough to weaken any steel to at least 10% strength
1:31 millions of pounds of concrete hitting the ground at the speed of gravity would implicate everything being reduced to powder, and all other substances of lesser density. no buildings that i know of have ever been brought down in a controlled demolition. it is impossible to try and predict accurately what the outcome of the collapses would be on a scale like this.
4:36 it's highly unlikely that many explosives were planted in such short period of time, and that NO ONE found them?
the thing is, people are TRYING TO explain the world trade center collapse to you. but it doesn't seem likely that anyone can give you an explanation that would satisfy you or your nutcase 9/11 truther friends. you're just going to keep making stupid youtube videos based on pure skepticism.
so bush is an idiot except when it comes to this and then he's an evil mastermind? ok.
2:06 "noone can provide a detailed account of why the collapses occured."
maybe cause planes crashed into the buildings?
5:20 there is no way JUST the floors would have collapsed around the core with it still standing. the core was damaged by IMPACT that broke and warped the core's steel beams. the steel beams that belonged to the core above the impact area were being supported by damaged steel.
1)do a little research, the pancake theory was ruled out by the NIST back in 05. their alternative "hypothesis" (thats a "theory" btw) is equally flawed.
the rest of your argument sounds like what i used to say until i actually READ the official story. i've worked in construction since age 15, 10 yrs of that as an on-site supervisor installing, removing and repairing underground fuel storage tank systems. i really dont know why i didnt see "truth" when i watched it happen. shock-n-awes a bitch!
oh my god. both buildings collapsed mainly because of THE GAPING HOLE IN THE SIDE FROM THE IMPACTS. before an hour and a half of raging fire which WEAKENED the steel beams that were supporting millions of pounds of concrete and steel. and you're implying that your possible 150 pounds of pressure you were pressing on that piece of steel is equal to a couple million pounds of weight from the buildings that were above the impact area.
Funny.. because I could find a journal entry on probably any scientific issue in existence. A simple search in OJOSE, OSTI, ProQuest or any other of these tools (that "Googlers" don't know about) to find actual scientific research / reports.
You are aware NIST is accepting such reports regarding WTC7 ? Step 1 in proving NIST is part of the conspiracy would be submitting such a report to both NIST & a peer-reviewed publication (journal), would do magic
by the way, the NIST DID make videos (i.e. the one with hot water running over a tight jar lid), took pictures and did computer "simulations"... there final report is still a theory and thats good because that leaves the answer in the hands of people that WANT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION!!! preferably before they decide to turn all the scrap metal into Navy Ships!
I've read the official story about both WTC1+2 and WTC7, and it seems absolutely sound to me.
I'm fully aware of the "Journal of 9/11 Studies", .. sorry.. not a credible journal AT ALL. Creationists have the same scenario setup.. where they put anything in there, and refuse review.
You still haven't provided anything specific, I insist that you do. For my & others sake.
Engineering, fire science, demolition, architecture.. any of these type of legitimate journals would be acceptable.
"Journal of 9/11 Studies"? out of a whole google search thats all that came up??
"Creationists"?? neat little word game but we weren't discussing religion.
"I've read the official story about both WTC1+2 and WTC7, and it seems absolutely sound to me."
didnt you previously state that you have no background or degree in architecture or engineering and have never worked in any form of construction? "seems absolutely sound to me" doesnt really "seem to be too sound of an opinion to me"
"out of a whole google search thats all that came up??" .. I want YOU to provide me with something, YOU. Why can't you do that?
If I was an engineer I would be responding in depth formally to all of the absolute falsities about 9/11, but since I'm not.. I don't. I don't fake an expertise. 9/11 conspiracists seem to be an expert in everything.
& when I ask for a simple report by a credible person in a credible journal, you just keep engaging me.
I want the truth, not a lame ass argument with you. & it seems after repeating again & again for this information.. you simply cannot provide it.
I sincerely want to read this stuff, .. and I consider it a HUGE dent in your case that very fact that there's not a wealth of such reports.
I am a graduate student working on my doctorate.. what I know is research, the process behind publishing your work, and how to read what I don't fully understand.
well, im not going to do all your research for you. anyone that "sincerely" wants to find "a simple report by a credible person" can easily do so.
go to ae911truth, overlook the retired waffle waitress in the "others" section and read some of the information provided by the "professionals" in the field. click on some of the liks and visit other "scientific" communities that question the official story.
you know as well as i do there is PLENTY of information and documentation.
"you know as well as i do there is PLENTY of information and documentation."
You know as well as I that the majority of that information & documentation is absolute child-level garbage, and cannot stand-up to any criticism by the professionals in the related fields.
I spent so much time following 9/11, and other conspiracies.. and was a one-time believer. Now I've gotten to the point where I just wanna see the study, the published work, the credentials. There's way too much garbage.
I concede the point that I should be doing the research.. but honestly I have done extensive research into so much of this stuff; and come out with the feeling that the entire community is based on idols, and not actual logical discourage and fact seeking (at all costs).
They don't follow the same process legitimate scientists do. Credentials are a start, publications are better, and defending reasoned criticisms of your work is further yet.
There are people who can prove beyond any doubt that lasers from space destroyed WTC 1+2, and that's Judy Woods theory from AEtruth.. so I just dunno how to respond to that sorta obvious insanity. MAZER/LASER? Fetzer thinks that too.
Anyone can write something that reads fine, it's their ADDENDUM that is laughable.
I've seen absolutely controversial things published in legitimate journals, .. all they have to pass is preliminary review (which is very very lax for most journals)
so Judy Woods and Fetzer out of 464 architectural and engineering professionals have turned you off to anything anyone else on ae911truth has to say?
i know what i saw hit the buildings. were they actual commercial aircraft... who knows? for all i know they were large RC jets (UAVs). thats something for someone else to figure out.
"i know what i saw hit the buildings. were they actual commercial aircraft... who knows?"
That's the good thing about being face to face with people, you can quickly determine if they're out of their minds or not.
I'm done w/your dumbass, .. the fact you can't provide a link to any substantial is damning; the fact you endorse the absolutely radical and INSANE aspects of 9/11 conspiracies.. seals the deal.
who said i "endorsed" anything... are you saying UAVs dont exist? who's out of their mind now? dont you watch the Military Channel?
ive provided you with information on where to look for documentation. you have shot it down with one or two off the wall comments about religion and radicalism, etc. youre showing your true colors... just another "shill".
i try to keep name calling to a minimum but youre an idiot.
the way those buildings collapsed on the other hand, was NOT a natural occurrence. office fire, even with jet fuel and a lack of sprinkler systems does not explain the catastrophic failure, complete collapse at free fall speed of three steel structure buildings.
thats my opinion from a construction supervisor/worker point of view.
Jet fuel = JET A-1 or AVTUR, flash point 100.4 degrees F, Open air burn of 549.5 F.
This is 75% kerosene which burns extemely fast in an open enviroment. Providing the fires only 15 minutes of fuel resulting in the furniture and building materials providing the remaining fuel. Which again is to low in heat and was oxygen starved as seen by the coloration of the smoke. Even in the best conditions ask a firefighter the maxium heat from the available burning materials.
Those are facts independent of a proposed sequence of events.
If you're claiming expertise or unknown facts based in science.. there's it's not an 'argument' of mine that you should submit your findings. It's your duty as a citizen of this country.
Otherwise.. you're just talking out your ass. These claims are founded in peer-reviewed reports which sustain ridicule from the process.
YOU have the burden of disproving NISTs WTC7 report. I have yet to hear any such theory proposed.
Where is Judy Wood? Where is Fetzer? Where is Gauge? Where are these architects & engineers???
I read Judy Woods submissions to NIST about WTC1+2, .. they were absolutely flimsy, & very ignorant of science. I'm waiting for her WTC7 reports.. which I assume will be equally humorous (since she is diagnosable)
Link me to a report regarding WTC7 that's contrary to NIST. I don't want some teenagers YouTube video, or some profiteering conspiracy theorists website.
Steel structures are built using HSLA type steel. This type of steel is commonly used because of its resistance to rust due to their lack of pearlite, and high tensile strength. This steel has 2.1 % carbon and begins to weaken at 2066 degrees, melting at 2400 degrees. Under the best possiable conditions for fire in those buildings it would have reached 1700 degrees. Also note the fire did not engulf both sides of the same floor.
Jet fuel burns at 1700 degrees in Ideal conditions. The color of smoke and amount are used to help firefighters determine the type and size of the fire before going in. Slow flowing dark grey and black smoke, showed the trained eye the fire was starved of oxygen further reducing its heat capacity. There is also audio of the firefighters at the 78th floor looking at the fires and letting command know they could contain it. But you don't even bother looking at the facts just badmouth us.
quite aware. im sure you're aware that WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the first steel structure buildings to have ever collapsed due to fires! the building directly under the towers didnt even collapse until brought down.
the NIST's most recent claim explaining the collapse of WTC 7 is an insult to the intelligence of the American people!
the point i was making with my "pan-theory" is that jet fuel (kerosene) did not somehow add to the overall temperature of the fires.
I'm aware that WTC7 was the first building to collapse (of a certain height) that fell exclusively due to fire.
I'm also aware WTC 1 & 2 are the first high-rises to be struck by commercial aircraft, ultimately causing collapse as well.
The NISTs claim is sounds. The report is just over 100 pages, .. have you read it?
Your point is simply not valid. How are you accounting for thermal expansion with your model? What instrument of measurement are you using to determine before & after sizes?
Your experiment is just wrong, and if you believe it relates in any meaningful way to the NIST results on the WTC 7 collapse.. you simply don't understand them.
You have a foot & a half piece of metal. If the WTC7 steel was 50' long (for example), .. the measurable difference in your experience would be divisible by 50. You haven't even made any measurement at all.. you merely leaned your body weight on the steel.
Do you believe your bodyweight in representative of an entire building?
The major reason you don't understand the NIST report is because you're not a structural engineer or a metallurgist. I'm neither of these, and with basic knowledge of engineering it makes sense to me.
Is fun to play with fire.. but to conclude some half-ass experiment you did in your driveway proves 9/11 was murder committed by our government.. is in the realm of mental insanity.
"you're not a structural engineer or a metallurgist"
True, I'm neither... I'm a construction man with "experience" in many aspects of building.
Oddly, when I was an on-site supervisor with my A+B license (TX, look it up) authorizing me to install, remove and repair underground storage tank systems, i learned a little something about FUEL and the characteristics of fuel fires... actually all fire.
I might know more than you think... dont let the Texas accent fool you :o)
I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, .. I don't doubt you have these experiences.
But you must admit that the best approach to discrediting a professional document is not to light a frying pan afire and conduct some backyard science.
To adequately refute the report, you have to be an expert.. and the people claiming expertise will certainly file their refutations before the deadline.
436 architectural and engineering professionals and 2242 other supporters including A&E students disagree.
Oddly, the number of professionals has grown by 10 or more and the other supporters by nearly 1000 since the NIST's latest release on WTC 7. Any idea why?
jet fuel (kerosene) had nothing to do with the metal deforming in those buildings and office fires alone do not collapse buildings.
As for the planes hitting the buildings, they survived initial impact
"436 architectural and engineering professionals and 2242 other supporters including A&E students disagree."
First.. it's not a hard thing to get people to sign a list. I've gone through that list, I suggest you do to. I found entries that were pretty obviously a joke, ..like "unemployed poet" or "crypto-zoologist".
Even if there were 1,000 engineers who refute the claim.. they'd have to go through the same peer-review process as anyone else.
That covers it, does it? You take a 120+ pg report, and consider it 'covered' & adequately contradicted by a 3:23 YouTube video?
What other circumstance in ANYTHING is this the case? More people have supposedly proven 9/11 was an inside job via video, than any other format. This is unique to conspiracies. No scientific fields regarding anything, has such an overwhelming presence of video crap regarding it.
They're just propaganda dude. Thus the background music & multi. level appeals
look if the NIST can use hot water running over a tight jar lid to explain the thermal expansion that caused this never seen before "new phenomena" in building collapses... my science is right in line with theirs.
my little experiment was actually more realistic and you still buy the NIST's official story. running hot water over a tight jar lid caused the catastrophic failure and/or "progressive(?)" (near FREE FALL speed) collapse of WTC 7?
NIST did not explain thermal expansion with a jar lid (in the report). You're referring to the press conference which was for the laymen.
You don't have ANY science in your work, I haven't seen anything but a dumb video from you. Do you have a scientific report you're withholding? You should really submit that to NIST..
Your experiment isn't realistic at all. If you think people will be convinced by that, you're wrong about what type of people.
If that's some technique, it's not gonna work. And frankly, .. if you're not smart enough to read the report.. and recognize what actually happened; then it doesn't matter what you think anyhow.
Your test is equivalent to me testing a high-speed frontal impact to a car, by throwing a basketball at the wall. It has absolutely no basis.. and besides that, you haven't written ANY SCIENTIFIC explanation
You're merely appealing to people who already believe
"461" architectural and engineering professionals and "2298" other supporters including A&E students still disagree.
Lieberman denied having knowledge of the WTC-7 collapse on August 7, 2008 (watch?v=tpQQu9AIl3Q). i guess that means it never happened.
the FACT is fires have NEVER caused buildings to collapse "progressively, at free fall speed, into their own footprint" in the history of steel structure buildings.
i havent "read" the NIST's newest report but i read past reports... all lies!
You do know that 461 architects & engineers, and 2300 people is not significant at all regarding the scientific community?
Plus.. that figure of 461 is obscenely exaggerated.
I've gone through that list of 2300 before.. and I found it to be quite the joke. Some of the entries were obviously jokes, 'unemployed poet', 'retired bicycle repair-man', & so on. The only reason that list exists is to act as exactly what you're using it for now. Having appeal in numbers, opposed to 'in science'.
they told us about pancakes, then ruled it out. they told us in WTC-7 that fuel tanks connected to generators by pressurized pipes fed fires for long periods of time... now ruled out (MY SPECIALTY by the way!). however they never told us what happened to the fuel in the tanks they said had been "pumped dry".
you already admitted not having any technical knowledge/experience in the building and fuel industry. so your basing your "opinion" on nothing more than what the NIST has "told" you!
They were mistaken about the fuel tanks, .. or so goes their current proposal.
I admit I don't have technical expertise, .. and I'll also say.. if you do, & you're not providing a report to NIST.. you are a piece of shit. Seriously.. You go on YouTube in your expertise, and debate people in the dumbest video I've come across yet regrading the topic.
The scientific method and process allows things to be 'ruled out', conspiracies do not. They give ridiculous and overly 'concrete' theories
is that the best you can do? now youre resorting to name calling. MrSangMang, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel in an "open air" environment and office fires do not burn hot enough to cause the catastrophic failure of 3 buildings. its NEVER happened before!!! partial collapses yes but NEVER total collapse at FREE FALL SPEED!!
The empire state building was hit by a military bomber. WTC were not the first to be hit by large aircraft.
Note that building was not built even close to as well. Is still standing today, and was never in danger of collapsing.
Note, firefighters have seen and studied many fires. They sent over 300 firefighters into the buildings. WHY? because in there professional opinion at that time. They saw no reason the buildings would collapse and felt confident the fires could be contained.
Empire State Building has NOTHING to do with the WTC design-wise in any regarding short of height. That is a ridiculous point.
"Note, firefighters have seen and studied many fires. They sent over 300 firefighters into the buildings. WHY?"
Firefighters study fire-suppression, not fire science. The best fire scientists could've been in charge of that decision, and would've done the same. Until the 1st collapse it never happened, so they didn't know it even could.
I don't even consider your response any type of proof towards claiming 9/11 was a conspiracy, .. is that what you're claiming?
It sounds to me like you're stating presidents that were set on 9/11. The fire buildings to collapse from a plane hitting them. The first high-rise building to collapse as a result of fire. The first use of planes as missiles by terrorists.
There were many firsts.. that's why 9/11 was such a tragedy.
..if only those buildings had stood.. if only they had stood =/
no, i just proved that an "open air" fuel fire doesnt burn hot enough to melt or weaken aluminum foil. jet fuel (kerosene) DOES NOT burn at temperatures of 800-1500°F unless its in a controlled environment. (fire triangle)
if you believe the official story you havent read the reports for yourself. PM's "debunking 9/11 myths" is weak, the commission report is a joke and the NIST's "theories" dont PROVE anything!
credible engineers? what makes them credible? who picked and hired them? me, you?
i could go on but here's something you should think about. in the commission report, our leaders and the top military personnel in our government claimed they had no idea that anyone would use commercial aircraft as a weapon.
i guess they dont watch movies or use common sense either.
Id trust this guy...you hear his voice? he sounds like the kinda southern hilly billy type that spent his weekend "blowin stuff up" so im pretty sure he knows what hes talking about...haha im just kidding but really though hes right. He obviously knows what hes talking about.
actually thats a Texas accent and i have quite a bit of knowledge in fuel and fuel systems. 10 yrs A+B licensed on-site supervisor authorized to install, repair, or remove underground storage tank systems in the State of Texas. when i received my license, i was 1 of 1907 people in the state to ever hold those credentials.
i've been in construction most of my life.
i may sound red-neck... hell, i may even be red-neck but i have a little experience in fuel and construction :o)
i know jet fuel, kerosene, diesel didnt get hot enough in an "open air" environment to cause the catastrophic failure of 3 steel buildings on 9/11... fireproofing knocked off or not.
lmao. the pressure u put on the piece of steel isnt even of a fraction of a percent of the pressure of the top of a skyscraper. unless you weigh a couple hundred tons....
youre right and galvanized unistrut and aluminum foil arent "structural steel". as for your comments on the other 2 videos, maybe you should read a book too... jet fuel/kerosene/diesel doesnt burn at temps up to 1800°F in an "OPEN AIR" environment. tell ya what, put about an inch of kerosene in a tin can and catch it on fire. did your "tin" can melt? WHY NOT? its just tin with an aluminum bottom. you people act like jet fuel is rocket fuel... its NOT!!
obviously someone needs to recreate a kerosene fire in a frying pan. there have been over 100 steel structure building fires, NONE have collapsed "at free fall speed" into their own footprint.
here's a couple of examples... how long did these buildings burn?
view_play_list?p=34BA26731548DFB7
explain WTC 7 and try to remember, an NIST hypothesis is still just a THEORY.
Cool. This is kind of interesting too... even though it does leave out some critical possibilities that further support the idea that what was reported is not what happened. watch?v=QbkpOnNzvU8
look at my playlists you'll see the full set of his videos in "9/11 Science" :o)
im trying to make a point that the FACTS are much more simple than all that. simple math, simple physics, simple science or just plain old COMMON SENSE!!
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you serious? Why should that steel bend? Assuming you put 1000N (~100kg) of force, the beam is 18x40mm, the pan is 300mm in diameter and assuming you apply the force in the middle, that's only about 20-30MPa of stress. That steel could be weakened to 10% of its strength and still not bend. Steel can take between 200-1000MPa.
saginata 9 months ago
Comment removed
saginata 9 months ago
If you really think fire could not weaken the steel please tell me why you suspect they fireproofed it in the first place.
You see that GALVANIZED steel you are using. WHERE IS THE FIRE PROOFING?
NO? NONE RIGHT?Apples and Oranges?Yea.....Please stop letting them laugh at you this way.
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut with or without fireproofing, heat weakened steel and localized structural damage don't cause buildings to collapse in the manner that WTC 1, 2 and 7 did. why didnt NIST test the steel for explosives residue? do you really believe that it would be impossible for investigators to distinguish between typical building materials and explosives? thats one of the weak excuse NIST would like you to accept... i assume you've read their FAQs page, right?
ALITL8 10 months ago
@ALITL8
Nists FAQ page? no.
Once you concede that the fire had an effect on the steel you cant say what effect it would have.unless you duplicate the experiment exactly as it happened.
Not stacking trays, not burning pots.
I am not much of a fan of the govt story, but I am a Nyer. Ive studied this matter. I am not going to pretend as if I know who did it, but i smell a rat.
This is a red herring. Everyone is stuck on how it was done. The ramifications of the event continue today.
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut i've been in construction most my life and i'm no kid. i can say, without hesitating, that steel and concrete framed buildings do not collapse in the manner WTC 1, 2 and 7 did without the assistance of explosives. i suggest you check out NIST's excuses as to why they "chose" not to test the steel for explosives residue: wtc dot nist dot gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006 dot htm
ALITL8 10 months ago
@ALITL8
You can say that. I have no doubt you believe what you are saying but I dont think you have considered this thoroughly.
How many buildings have been hit with high speed 767s with a lot of jet fuel.
Even the buildings designer emphasize they made it to withstand a slow flying lost aircraft.
Unless you can duplicate the exact same conditions it is hard to say that this event couldn't happen the way is suggested.
What does it matter how it happened? Its no excuse for whats being done.
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut how much is a lot? during my career in construction, i spent nearly 10 yrs as an A+B licensed on-site supervisor in the gas and oil industry. you can trust that i've considered it thoroughly (or not). the buildings designer actually said that the buildings could withstand up to 2 airliner impacts and remain standing. you dont have to duplicate the exact same conditions to say that this event couldn't happen the way it's been suggested. it matters cause someone had to be on the inside
ALITL8 10 months ago
@AL
I am pretty certain they did not need explosives in the building. floors collapsing,....yea floors collapsing, debris and bodies hitting cars were called explosions that day.
Not bombs. Explosion is just a sound..
I doubt the people that planned that expected the buildings to fall the way they did. It is not likely.
Not that I think they care about the people, but it made a huge mess in the financial center of the world.
They even lied to ppl and told them it was safe to get help cleaning
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut yep, floors did collapse and some steel probably weakened too but i didnt say anything about explosions (which were reported by many witnesses), i said NIST did not test for explosives residue.
i doubt that plane impacts, localized structural damage and office can completely destroy 3 buildings (super-structures) on the same day... especially when one of them wasn't even hit by a plane.
ever consider that part of the plan was to make a huge mess in the financial center of the world?
ALITL8 10 months ago
@ALITL8 "office fires" typo
ALITL8 10 months ago
@ALITL8
Buildings 3,4,5, and 6 all had to be demolished.
You know what? You want to see how the debris affected 7. Go watch my playlist so called 911 truth. It is always better to demonstrate.
7 had big smoking holes in it and parts of 7 were collapsing early in the morning.
You only see the face of the building that was facing away from the WTC in all the videos.
Why dont you take a look at the play list and see how the other side, inside and the street full of debris.
ZhugeNaut 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut believe it or not, i believed the official story about how the buildings collapsed until i actually looked at the evidence for myself. like i said earlier in this conversation, i spent most of my life in the construction industry and nearly 10 yrs of it in gas and oil construction (Google: A+B Licensed On Site Supervisor and look up the qualifications needed for acquiring that license). i'll look at your playlist but it's quite likely i've already seen and considered the info.
ALITL8 10 months ago
@ZhugeNaut "playlist so called 911 truth"
i'm not finding that playlist on your page. your playlists include "If Ye Truth" and "Whitebox".
ALITL8 10 months ago
no thermometer? - just a weak fire in a cast iron pan? You're part right - that ain't science.
ObiWanShinobi1 2 years ago
while this doesnt compare to the simulation done by UL it is a good show. thanks.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
Newton's Third Law is ALL the evidence needed to prove controlled demolition.
citizens of U.S.A. ; stand up or stand down.
a Socially Adept Psychopath is capable of mass murder.
a Socially Adept Psychopath is capable of being elected president.
it is long past time for a criminal investigation and trial.
if you CHOOSE to stand down know what you are standing down to.
bIZAROsPRMN11 3 years ago
Newtons Third Law is all the evidence needed to prove controlled demolition of WTC 1 and 2.
NIST knows this. this is why NIST chose to stand down.
NIST admits their report
"... does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower" after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached ... ."
NIST - 2005
the time for a CRIMINAL investigation is seven years overdue. it is long overdue for criminal charges to be brought against those responsible for murder of nearly 3,000 people.
bIZAROsPRMN11 3 years ago
Explanation3) Praise be Allah! (hijacked personal belief systems). Raise an islamist militant, give him technology and a little manure, then put on your goggles, jump behind a barricade, and watch the laws of physics in action! If you had a stonger belief in the righteousness of killing for a dogmatic wet dream, you'd be too busy studying your aviation manual to be farting around making youtube videos with broomsticks and skillets in your driveway.
nodestudio 3 years ago
Explanation2) Fire. The fires in the towers weren't on the rooftops, they were inside several acres of those buildings. Instead of an open skillet, take a barbecue grill, cover it, fill it with newspaper and superballs, and fill the grill about a half gallon of kerosene. Use a fan or a bellows to blow air into the covered grill through holes on both sides. Put a stronger metal rod in there and cook it for an hour, then apply about 500lbs of pressure or torque and watch it bend like taffy!
nodestudio 3 years ago
Explanation1) Physics. The jets hit at speeds between 450-600mph, and a 757's a big heavy beast. Storm winds at 100mph will send a 2x4 through a dense treestump. No matter how hard I throw a 2x4 at a treestump I won't be able to puncture the tree, but a 400,000lb chunk of aluminum at half the speed of sound will shear anything in its path. Lightly pressing down on a hot piece of metal in your driveway with a broomstick won't exactly duplicate this scenario but it's an excellent first experiment.
nodestudio 3 years ago
In the battle of steel vs aluminum, steel wins every time, regardless of velocity or of which is travelling and which is stationery.
sxmadrid 3 years ago
Don't forget mass and ratio. I can cut right through a guitar string with a serraded aluminum blade.
nodestudio 3 years ago
Also, a 757 isn't made out of tinfoil or cast aluminum - it's a high strength alloy. Take for instance anodized aluminum; try to cut a calphalon pan with a steel knife. Shoot it with a bullet. This is what I'm talking about.
nodestudio 3 years ago
Have you seen the images of this plane apparently gliding into the building? They might be genuine, like the sun might not rise tomorrow, but shouldn't we look at the probabilty that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that the images are fake? In the end, if it's crimes we're looking for there are far bigger and far less arguable ones that followed 2001, but the dimensions of this ongoing psyop that is '9/11' are too fascinating and too important to ignore. That's my position.
sxmadrid 3 years ago
And those scabs on your knuckles are from where they've been dragging on the ground when you walk.
nodestudio 3 years ago
You're on two legs but your mouth's at groin level.
sxmadrid 3 years ago
If you're talking about your groin, move that banjo out of the way.
nodestudio 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALITL you've gotta be fucking kidding me....first of all theres is zero substance to this video because you could make it what you wanted in your own environment.........and second , since when do you weigh as much as the world trade center? (providing you were even pressing down at all)
hotjoe300 3 years ago
That was a waste of time. That explained nothing.
Galicgalen 3 years ago
a lot like the final report on WTC 7 by NIST...
hot water over a tight jar lid to explain the science of thermal expansion LMAO!!!
ALITL8 3 years ago
The first tower collapsed 102 minutes after the first plane hit. You burned a piece of galvanized steel for 30 minutes.
Galicgalen 3 years ago
Alas, hot water over a metal lid on a glass jar, is the simplist way of giving the layman an example of thermal expantion.
Galicgalen 3 years ago
well i just gave you the layman's example of less than 1/8 inch thick "galvanized" steel and ALUMINUM foil not being weakened or distorted buy ACTUAL fire.
they lied and are still lying. youre FREE to believe whatever you'd like but with my knowledge of fuel, fire and building, i'm not buying it! i used to be on your side believe it or not... then i started thinking and researching for myself.
ALITL8 3 years ago
How hot was the fire?
Galicgalen 3 years ago
still missing the point arent you?
ALITL8 3 years ago
No, I understand perfectly what your trying to relay to the world; your argument is very weak and unsubstantial, it pales in compairison to 9/11.
Galicgalen 3 years ago
But your research provides little answers. A fire in a pan pales in compairison to 10k gallons of JP 8 a commercial airliner and the WTC. You're not thinking for yourself, you're buying into what the truthers are saying.
Galicgalen 3 years ago
JP 8? Jet A-1 is the most commonly used fuel in "commercial" aircraft. either way jet fuel only burns at or near 549.5 degrees in an open air environment. not to mention that even the official reports tell us that the "majority" of that fuel was burned up in the explosion. as far as what i believe, it was reading the official reports that made me question their story.
I actually know a good bit about fuel and fire... built service stations for 10 yrs
ALITL8 3 years ago
ALITL8 3 years ago
I replied to your PM with those credintials, correct?
ALITL8 3 years ago
ALITL you've gotta be fucking kidding me....first of all theres is zero substance to this video because you could make it what you wanted in your own environment.........and second , since when do you weigh as much as the world trade center? (providing you were even pressing down at all)
hotjoe300 3 years ago
hotjoe300,
you're right, i could create my own environment by adding oxygen (air) to the fire, making it burn much hotter and you're right, i don't weigh as much as the world trade center buildings (thanks for noticing) and you're right once again, maybe i didn't press down.
what exactly is your point? aluminum foil and "galvanized" steel dont compare to the construction grade materials that went into those buildings either...
thats kinda my point!
ALITL8 3 years ago
so you really are proving nothing here......its incredibly inaccurate even if the steel you are using is weaker. It has almost no similarity to how the events happened
hotjoe300 3 years ago
the steel i used is incredibly weaker than the steel used in the WTC buildings, the fire's temperature is actually quite similar in the fact that its a kerosene/diesel fire in an "open air" environment.
jet fuel had no effect on the temperature of the fires and office fires dont cause complete catastrophic failure of steel buildings.
it's really that simple but since i've already addressed this topic at least 3 times since posting these videos, i'll let you go read whats already been said.
ALITL8 3 years ago
what about how steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees?....how hot was your "fire"? the highest temperatures in the WTC got to 1800 degrees...hot enough to weaken any steel to at least 10% strength
hotjoe300 3 years ago
part 2:
1:31 millions of pounds of concrete hitting the ground at the speed of gravity would implicate everything being reduced to powder, and all other substances of lesser density. no buildings that i know of have ever been brought down in a controlled demolition. it is impossible to try and predict accurately what the outcome of the collapses would be on a scale like this.
4:36 it's highly unlikely that many explosives were planted in such short period of time, and that NO ONE found them?
lordjared 3 years ago
search WTC power down
QymLym 3 years ago
oh yeah because you can totally set 100,000 pounds of explosives in EACH of the towers in one night.
lordjared 3 years ago
over a period of two weeks actually.
QymLym 3 years ago
the thing is, people are TRYING TO explain the world trade center collapse to you. but it doesn't seem likely that anyone can give you an explanation that would satisfy you or your nutcase 9/11 truther friends. you're just going to keep making stupid youtube videos based on pure skepticism.
so bush is an idiot except when it comes to this and then he's an evil mastermind? ok.
lordjared 3 years ago
part 1 watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk
part 2 watch?v=UcWuVpy9PYc
watch?v=zbeO_nX2WF0
watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
im not even going to entertain your Bush comment.
ALITL8 3 years ago
part 1:
1:18 pancaking floors ejected smoke
2:06 "noone can provide a detailed account of why the collapses occured."
maybe cause planes crashed into the buildings?
5:20 there is no way JUST the floors would have collapsed around the core with it still standing. the core was damaged by IMPACT that broke and warped the core's steel beams. the steel beams that belonged to the core above the impact area were being supported by damaged steel.
8:10 what exactly is he trying to prove here?
lordjared 3 years ago
1)do a little research, the pancake theory was ruled out by the NIST back in 05. their alternative "hypothesis" (thats a "theory" btw) is equally flawed.
the rest of your argument sounds like what i used to say until i actually READ the official story. i've worked in construction since age 15, 10 yrs of that as an on-site supervisor installing, removing and repairing underground fuel storage tank systems. i really dont know why i didnt see "truth" when i watched it happen. shock-n-awes a bitch!
ALITL8 3 years ago
oh my god. both buildings collapsed mainly because of THE GAPING HOLE IN THE SIDE FROM THE IMPACTS. before an hour and a half of raging fire which WEAKENED the steel beams that were supporting millions of pounds of concrete and steel. and you're implying that your possible 150 pounds of pressure you were pressing on that piece of steel is equal to a couple million pounds of weight from the buildings that were above the impact area.
lordjared 3 years ago
So you cannot link me to such a report?
Funny.. because I could find a journal entry on probably any scientific issue in existence. A simple search in OJOSE, OSTI, ProQuest or any other of these tools (that "Googlers" don't know about) to find actual scientific research / reports.
You are aware NIST is accepting such reports regarding WTC7 ? Step 1 in proving NIST is part of the conspiracy would be submitting such a report to both NIST & a peer-reviewed publication (journal), would do magic
MrSangMang 3 years ago
In document form... NIST didn't make a goddamn video, you have to match fire w/fire..
You're not convincing me anything about WTC7, you're only furthering my assumption that you are diagnosable.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
by the way, the NIST DID make videos (i.e. the one with hot water running over a tight jar lid), took pictures and did computer "simulations"... there final report is still a theory and thats good because that leaves the answer in the hands of people that WANT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION!!! preferably before they decide to turn all the scrap metal into Navy Ships!
ALITL8 3 years ago
So you can't provide any such documentation? That is sad...
MrSangMang 3 years ago
here, google this:
9/11 peer reviewed scientific journal
i'll let you do the reading and by the way, i never questioned the official story until i actually took the time to read it.
ALITL8 3 years ago
I've read the official story about both WTC1+2 and WTC7, and it seems absolutely sound to me.
I'm fully aware of the "Journal of 9/11 Studies", .. sorry.. not a credible journal AT ALL. Creationists have the same scenario setup.. where they put anything in there, and refuse review.
You still haven't provided anything specific, I insist that you do. For my & others sake.
Engineering, fire science, demolition, architecture.. any of these type of legitimate journals would be acceptable.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
"Journal of 9/11 Studies"? out of a whole google search thats all that came up??
"Creationists"?? neat little word game but we weren't discussing religion.
"I've read the official story about both WTC1+2 and WTC7, and it seems absolutely sound to me."
didnt you previously state that you have no background or degree in architecture or engineering and have never worked in any form of construction? "seems absolutely sound to me" doesnt really "seem to be too sound of an opinion to me"
ALITL8 3 years ago
"out of a whole google search thats all that came up??" .. I want YOU to provide me with something, YOU. Why can't you do that?
If I was an engineer I would be responding in depth formally to all of the absolute falsities about 9/11, but since I'm not.. I don't. I don't fake an expertise. 9/11 conspiracists seem to be an expert in everything.
& when I ask for a simple report by a credible person in a credible journal, you just keep engaging me.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
If the information exists, please provide it.
I want the truth, not a lame ass argument with you. & it seems after repeating again & again for this information.. you simply cannot provide it.
I sincerely want to read this stuff, .. and I consider it a HUGE dent in your case that very fact that there's not a wealth of such reports.
I am a graduate student working on my doctorate.. what I know is research, the process behind publishing your work, and how to read what I don't fully understand.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
well, im not going to do all your research for you. anyone that "sincerely" wants to find "a simple report by a credible person" can easily do so.
go to ae911truth, overlook the retired waffle waitress in the "others" section and read some of the information provided by the "professionals" in the field. click on some of the liks and visit other "scientific" communities that question the official story.
you know as well as i do there is PLENTY of information and documentation.
ALITL8 3 years ago
"you know as well as i do there is PLENTY of information and documentation."
You know as well as I that the majority of that information & documentation is absolute child-level garbage, and cannot stand-up to any criticism by the professionals in the related fields.
I spent so much time following 9/11, and other conspiracies.. and was a one-time believer. Now I've gotten to the point where I just wanna see the study, the published work, the credentials. There's way too much garbage.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
I concede the point that I should be doing the research.. but honestly I have done extensive research into so much of this stuff; and come out with the feeling that the entire community is based on idols, and not actual logical discourage and fact seeking (at all costs).
They don't follow the same process legitimate scientists do. Credentials are a start, publications are better, and defending reasoned criticisms of your work is further yet.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
There are people who can prove beyond any doubt that lasers from space destroyed WTC 1+2, and that's Judy Woods theory from AEtruth.. so I just dunno how to respond to that sorta obvious insanity. MAZER/LASER? Fetzer thinks that too.
Anyone can write something that reads fine, it's their ADDENDUM that is laughable.
I've seen absolutely controversial things published in legitimate journals, .. all they have to pass is preliminary review (which is very very lax for most journals)
MrSangMang 3 years ago
so Judy Woods and Fetzer out of 464 architectural and engineering professionals have turned you off to anything anyone else on ae911truth has to say?
i know what i saw hit the buildings. were they actual commercial aircraft... who knows? for all i know they were large RC jets (UAVs). thats something for someone else to figure out.
ALITL8 3 years ago
"i know what i saw hit the buildings. were they actual commercial aircraft... who knows?"
That's the good thing about being face to face with people, you can quickly determine if they're out of their minds or not.
I'm done w/your dumbass, .. the fact you can't provide a link to any substantial is damning; the fact you endorse the absolutely radical and INSANE aspects of 9/11 conspiracies.. seals the deal.
Seek help..
MrSangMang 3 years ago
who said i "endorsed" anything... are you saying UAVs dont exist? who's out of their mind now? dont you watch the Military Channel?
ive provided you with information on where to look for documentation. you have shot it down with one or two off the wall comments about religion and radicalism, etc. youre showing your true colors... just another "shill".
i try to keep name calling to a minimum but youre an idiot.
ALITL8 3 years ago
the way those buildings collapsed on the other hand, was NOT a natural occurrence. office fire, even with jet fuel and a lack of sprinkler systems does not explain the catastrophic failure, complete collapse at free fall speed of three steel structure buildings.
thats my opinion from a construction supervisor/worker point of view.
ALITL8 3 years ago
Jet fuel = JET A-1 or AVTUR, flash point 100.4 degrees F, Open air burn of 549.5 F.
This is 75% kerosene which burns extemely fast in an open enviroment. Providing the fires only 15 minutes of fuel resulting in the furniture and building materials providing the remaining fuel. Which again is to low in heat and was oxygen starved as seen by the coloration of the smoke. Even in the best conditions ask a firefighter the maxium heat from the available burning materials.
JasonBrumfeld 3 years ago
Such great scientific facts, .. I have to assume you've submitted your findings to NIST?
MrSangMang 3 years ago
his FACTs are correct on the fuel and fire temperatures. is your best argument "I have to assume you've submitted your findings to NIST?"
ALITL8 3 years ago
Those are facts independent of a proposed sequence of events.
If you're claiming expertise or unknown facts based in science.. there's it's not an 'argument' of mine that you should submit your findings. It's your duty as a citizen of this country.
Otherwise.. you're just talking out your ass. These claims are founded in peer-reviewed reports which sustain ridicule from the process.
YOU have the burden of disproving NISTs WTC7 report. I have yet to hear any such theory proposed.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
Where is Judy Wood? Where is Fetzer? Where is Gauge? Where are these architects & engineers???
I read Judy Woods submissions to NIST about WTC1+2, .. they were absolutely flimsy, & very ignorant of science. I'm waiting for her WTC7 reports.. which I assume will be equally humorous (since she is diagnosable)
Link me to a report regarding WTC7 that's contrary to NIST. I don't want some teenagers YouTube video, or some profiteering conspiracy theorists website.
I want a scientific report.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
view_play_list?p=C93A20AE291812D0
here's some science for you with no music
ALITL8 3 years ago
Steel structures are built using HSLA type steel. This type of steel is commonly used because of its resistance to rust due to their lack of pearlite, and high tensile strength. This steel has 2.1 % carbon and begins to weaken at 2066 degrees, melting at 2400 degrees. Under the best possiable conditions for fire in those buildings it would have reached 1700 degrees. Also note the fire did not engulf both sides of the same floor.
JasonBrumfeld 3 years ago
Jet fuel burns at 1700 degrees in Ideal conditions. The color of smoke and amount are used to help firefighters determine the type and size of the fire before going in. Slow flowing dark grey and black smoke, showed the trained eye the fire was starved of oxygen further reducing its heat capacity. There is also audio of the firefighters at the 78th floor looking at the fires and letting command know they could contain it. But you don't even bother looking at the facts just badmouth us.
JasonBrumfeld 3 years ago
Why would they put fire-proofing on the steel if your pan-theory is accurate?
You are aware that putting fireproofing on structural steel is standard?
MrSangMang 3 years ago
quite aware. im sure you're aware that WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the first steel structure buildings to have ever collapsed due to fires! the building directly under the towers didnt even collapse until brought down.
the NIST's most recent claim explaining the collapse of WTC 7 is an insult to the intelligence of the American people!
the point i was making with my "pan-theory" is that jet fuel (kerosene) did not somehow add to the overall temperature of the fires.
ALITL8 3 years ago
I'm aware that WTC7 was the first building to collapse (of a certain height) that fell exclusively due to fire.
I'm also aware WTC 1 & 2 are the first high-rises to be struck by commercial aircraft, ultimately causing collapse as well.
The NISTs claim is sounds. The report is just over 100 pages, .. have you read it?
Your point is simply not valid. How are you accounting for thermal expansion with your model? What instrument of measurement are you using to determine before & after sizes?
MrSangMang 3 years ago
Your experiment is just wrong, and if you believe it relates in any meaningful way to the NIST results on the WTC 7 collapse.. you simply don't understand them.
You have a foot & a half piece of metal. If the WTC7 steel was 50' long (for example), .. the measurable difference in your experience would be divisible by 50. You haven't even made any measurement at all.. you merely leaned your body weight on the steel.
Do you believe your bodyweight in representative of an entire building?
MrSangMang 3 years ago
The major reason you don't understand the NIST report is because you're not a structural engineer or a metallurgist. I'm neither of these, and with basic knowledge of engineering it makes sense to me.
Is fun to play with fire.. but to conclude some half-ass experiment you did in your driveway proves 9/11 was murder committed by our government.. is in the realm of mental insanity.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
"you're not a structural engineer or a metallurgist"
True, I'm neither... I'm a construction man with "experience" in many aspects of building.
Oddly, when I was an on-site supervisor with my A+B license (TX, look it up) authorizing me to install, remove and repair underground storage tank systems, i learned a little something about FUEL and the characteristics of fuel fires... actually all fire.
I might know more than you think... dont let the Texas accent fool you :o)
ALITL8 3 years ago
I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, .. I don't doubt you have these experiences.
But you must admit that the best approach to discrediting a professional document is not to light a frying pan afire and conduct some backyard science.
To adequately refute the report, you have to be an expert.. and the people claiming expertise will certainly file their refutations before the deadline.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
"The NISTs claim is sounds."
436 architectural and engineering professionals and 2242 other supporters including A&E students disagree.
Oddly, the number of professionals has grown by 10 or more and the other supporters by nearly 1000 since the NIST's latest release on WTC 7. Any idea why?
jet fuel (kerosene) had nothing to do with the metal deforming in those buildings and office fires alone do not collapse buildings.
As for the planes hitting the buildings, they survived initial impact
ALITL8 3 years ago
"436 architectural and engineering professionals and 2242 other supporters including A&E students disagree."
First.. it's not a hard thing to get people to sign a list. I've gone through that list, I suggest you do to. I found entries that were pretty obviously a joke, ..like "unemployed poet" or "crypto-zoologist".
Even if there were 1,000 engineers who refute the claim.. they'd have to go through the same peer-review process as anyone else.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
.. once & if there are published works contradicting the WTC7 report, I will read them. The floor has been opened by NIST for such papers.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
this pretty much covers it, mrsangmang
watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ
ALITL8 3 years ago
That covers it, does it? You take a 120+ pg report, and consider it 'covered' & adequately contradicted by a 3:23 YouTube video?
What other circumstance in ANYTHING is this the case? More people have supposedly proven 9/11 was an inside job via video, than any other format. This is unique to conspiracies. No scientific fields regarding anything, has such an overwhelming presence of video crap regarding it.
They're just propaganda dude. Thus the background music & multi. level appeals
MrSangMang 3 years ago
look if the NIST can use hot water running over a tight jar lid to explain the thermal expansion that caused this never seen before "new phenomena" in building collapses... my science is right in line with theirs.
my little experiment was actually more realistic and you still buy the NIST's official story. running hot water over a tight jar lid caused the catastrophic failure and/or "progressive(?)" (near FREE FALL speed) collapse of WTC 7?
come on, youre smarter than that ;o)
ALITL8 3 years ago
NIST did not explain thermal expansion with a jar lid (in the report). You're referring to the press conference which was for the laymen.
You don't have ANY science in your work, I haven't seen anything but a dumb video from you. Do you have a scientific report you're withholding? You should really submit that to NIST..
Your experiment isn't realistic at all. If you think people will be convinced by that, you're wrong about what type of people.
Did you even read the report???
MrSangMang 3 years ago
"come on, youre smarter than that ;o)"
If that's some technique, it's not gonna work. And frankly, .. if you're not smart enough to read the report.. and recognize what actually happened; then it doesn't matter what you think anyhow.
Your test is equivalent to me testing a high-speed frontal impact to a car, by throwing a basketball at the wall. It has absolutely no basis.. and besides that, you haven't written ANY SCIENTIFIC explanation
You're merely appealing to people who already believe
MrSangMang 3 years ago
"461" architectural and engineering professionals and "2298" other supporters including A&E students still disagree.
Lieberman denied having knowledge of the WTC-7 collapse on August 7, 2008 (watch?v=tpQQu9AIl3Q). i guess that means it never happened.
the FACT is fires have NEVER caused buildings to collapse "progressively, at free fall speed, into their own footprint" in the history of steel structure buildings.
i havent "read" the NIST's newest report but i read past reports... all lies!
ALITL8 3 years ago
You do know that 461 architects & engineers, and 2300 people is not significant at all regarding the scientific community?
Plus.. that figure of 461 is obscenely exaggerated.
I've gone through that list of 2300 before.. and I found it to be quite the joke. Some of the entries were obviously jokes, 'unemployed poet', 'retired bicycle repair-man', & so on. The only reason that list exists is to act as exactly what you're using it for now. Having appeal in numbers, opposed to 'in science'.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
they told us about pancakes, then ruled it out. they told us in WTC-7 that fuel tanks connected to generators by pressurized pipes fed fires for long periods of time... now ruled out (MY SPECIALTY by the way!). however they never told us what happened to the fuel in the tanks they said had been "pumped dry".
you already admitted not having any technical knowledge/experience in the building and fuel industry. so your basing your "opinion" on nothing more than what the NIST has "told" you!
ALITL8 3 years ago
They were mistaken about the fuel tanks, .. or so goes their current proposal.
I admit I don't have technical expertise, .. and I'll also say.. if you do, & you're not providing a report to NIST.. you are a piece of shit. Seriously.. You go on YouTube in your expertise, and debate people in the dumbest video I've come across yet regrading the topic.
The scientific method and process allows things to be 'ruled out', conspiracies do not. They give ridiculous and overly 'concrete' theories
MrSangMang 3 years ago
is that the best you can do? now youre resorting to name calling. MrSangMang, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel in an "open air" environment and office fires do not burn hot enough to cause the catastrophic failure of 3 buildings. its NEVER happened before!!! partial collapses yes but NEVER total collapse at FREE FALL SPEED!!
ALITL8 3 years ago
So you can't link to any reports?
MrSangMang 3 years ago
The empire state building was hit by a military bomber. WTC were not the first to be hit by large aircraft.
Note that building was not built even close to as well. Is still standing today, and was never in danger of collapsing.
Note, firefighters have seen and studied many fires. They sent over 300 firefighters into the buildings. WHY? because in there professional opinion at that time. They saw no reason the buildings would collapse and felt confident the fires could be contained.
JasonBrumfeld 3 years ago
Empire State Building has NOTHING to do with the WTC design-wise in any regarding short of height. That is a ridiculous point.
"Note, firefighters have seen and studied many fires. They sent over 300 firefighters into the buildings. WHY?"
Firefighters study fire-suppression, not fire science. The best fire scientists could've been in charge of that decision, and would've done the same. Until the 1st collapse it never happened, so they didn't know it even could.
Engineering went bad.
MrSangMang 3 years ago
I don't even consider your response any type of proof towards claiming 9/11 was a conspiracy, .. is that what you're claiming?
It sounds to me like you're stating presidents that were set on 9/11. The fire buildings to collapse from a plane hitting them. The first high-rise building to collapse as a result of fire. The first use of planes as missiles by terrorists.
There were many firsts.. that's why 9/11 was such a tragedy.
..if only those buildings had stood.. if only they had stood =/
MrSangMang 3 years ago
So basically your disproving every credible engineer and investigator of 9/11 and your proof is that you lit a pan on fire and it didn't collapse?
SunFlightx 3 years ago
no, i just proved that an "open air" fuel fire doesnt burn hot enough to melt or weaken aluminum foil. jet fuel (kerosene) DOES NOT burn at temperatures of 800-1500°F unless its in a controlled environment. (fire triangle)
if you believe the official story you havent read the reports for yourself. PM's "debunking 9/11 myths" is weak, the commission report is a joke and the NIST's "theories" dont PROVE anything!
credible engineers? what makes them credible? who picked and hired them? me, you?
ALITL8 3 years ago
i could go on but here's something you should think about. in the commission report, our leaders and the top military personnel in our government claimed they had no idea that anyone would use commercial aircraft as a weapon.
i guess they dont watch movies or use common sense either.
ALITL8 3 years ago
Id trust this guy...you hear his voice? he sounds like the kinda southern hilly billy type that spent his weekend "blowin stuff up" so im pretty sure he knows what hes talking about...haha im just kidding but really though hes right. He obviously knows what hes talking about.
TannerDanger 3 years ago
actually thats a Texas accent and i have quite a bit of knowledge in fuel and fuel systems. 10 yrs A+B licensed on-site supervisor authorized to install, repair, or remove underground storage tank systems in the State of Texas. when i received my license, i was 1 of 1907 people in the state to ever hold those credentials.
i've been in construction most of my life.
i may sound red-neck... hell, i may even be red-neck but i have a little experience in fuel and construction :o)
ALITL8 3 years ago
TOO BAD YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING!!
YANKEES1738 3 years ago
i know jet fuel, kerosene, diesel didnt get hot enough in an "open air" environment to cause the catastrophic failure of 3 steel buildings on 9/11... fireproofing knocked off or not.
ALITL8 3 years ago
GREAT JOB A++++
GOD BLESS YOU
YANKEES1738 3 years ago
lmao. the pressure u put on the piece of steel isnt even of a fraction of a percent of the pressure of the top of a skyscraper. unless you weigh a couple hundred tons....
Gromagolus 3 years ago
youre right and galvanized unistrut and aluminum foil arent "structural steel". as for your comments on the other 2 videos, maybe you should read a book too... jet fuel/kerosene/diesel doesnt burn at temps up to 1800°F in an "OPEN AIR" environment. tell ya what, put about an inch of kerosene in a tin can and catch it on fire. did your "tin" can melt? WHY NOT? its just tin with an aluminum bottom. you people act like jet fuel is rocket fuel... its NOT!!
JET A-1 open air burn temp 549.5
ALITL8 3 years ago
ya. im right
and trying to recreate a national disaster in a cooking pan isnt.
Gromagolus 3 years ago
yep and im right too
obviously someone needs to recreate a kerosene fire in a frying pan. there have been over 100 steel structure building fires, NONE have collapsed "at free fall speed" into their own footprint.
here's a couple of examples... how long did these buildings burn?
view_play_list?p=34BA26731548DFB7
explain WTC 7 and try to remember, an NIST hypothesis is still just a THEORY.
ALITL8 3 years ago
Cool. This is kind of interesting too... even though it does leave out some critical possibilities that further support the idea that what was reported is not what happened. watch?v=QbkpOnNzvU8
SprawlX 3 years ago
look at my playlists you'll see the full set of his videos in "9/11 Science" :o)
im trying to make a point that the FACTS are much more simple than all that. simple math, simple physics, simple science or just plain old COMMON SENSE!!
ALITL8 3 years ago