SO TIRED OF THESE LAME ASS FAT GOVERNMENT CHEESE HAPPYMEAL FED BABIES THAT BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT SAYS AND WILL FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO DEFEND THIS LYING THIEVING MURDERING BACKSTABBING GOVERNMENT AND ITS LIES.
Immediately after 9/11 the conventional wisdom was that the jet fuel had melted the steel. NBC, CNN, NOVA, Fox News, and BBC all said so, and quoted a variety of "experts" on the subject.
Of course this was nonsense. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.
@punxsutawneybarney well... wood burns hot enough to melt steel... are blacksmiths from centuries ago part of the conspiracy? you dont need to liquefy it, just weaken it.
@mrlowhe Yeah, sure wood burns hot enough to melt steel--why, I just melted a $3000 wood stove last week 'cause I left it burning all night. I hate it when that happens! :>)
@mrlowhe I'm not a gunsmith, but I think gunbarrels are bored, not forged. Wood does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Traditional blacksmiths still forge barrels the same old way -- wood or coal fire, with a jet of air pumped in by a foot-operated bellows. It forges, shapes, welds easily at low-red heat.
Private colleges like USC Engineering should be the first on board with this reopening of facts to this event. Public teaching institutions are not allowed to think about facts or truth. Think about it when your paying off that private school loan !
Are you saying that if 8 floors were on fire, the temperature in that fire would only be 67 degrees? What if 30 floors were on fire? How cold would that fire be?
@saginata if you assume that the only source of fuel is the jet fuel then the temperature addition will be smaller as the mass of the burning object increases however in real life the actual building itself has got combustible materials too which need to be taken into account,
@saginata there wasnt much fire in the buildings at all. there was a lady standing in the hole from the airplane proving that the temperature couldnt have been very hot and that there was very little if any fire at all. the toxic from the smoke and fumes is what caused people to jump.
nano thermite explosives were used to brings these buildings down and were placed throughout the buildings weeks in advance during emergency drills. no fire has ever cause a steel frame building to collapse.
@timberlandtim1 "there was a lady standing in the hole ... proving that ... there was very little if any fire at all."
A common misrepresentation (lie) of the "truth" movement. Obviously people in a burning building move AWAY from the fires, which is why they moved there; the fires had MOVED in the 45' since the crash. To where? This pic of the OTHER side of tower 1 was taken at the same time: tinypic.com/r/ase3l/5
"nano thermite explosives were used to brings these buildings down"
Another lie! Nano thermite has NOT BEEN PROVED - just alleged by a team of dedicated truthers, NOT unbiased scientists. Show us *one* real thermite expert who says there was thermite in those buildings. I dare ya!
@TimReed22222 theres wasnt much fire and thats a fact. people move away from the smoke from the fire becuase smoke actually kills more often then fire does. ask any fireman. next there was not enough fuel present to alow a continuous burning fire at high temperatures. jet fuel dosnt even burn hot enough to melt steel.
@TimReed22222 the fires were no where near hot enough to even weaken the steel towers frames. black smiths cant even melt steel without using coal fires and oxygen intakes in a closed environment to make a fire hot enough to melt steel. and it takes hours to get the fire that hot even with all that. the world trade center fires were open air with no viable fuel such as coal and only burned for about an hour. not to mention some of the portions of the building were not even subject to fire.
@TimReed22222 false the highest temperatures the fires reached was 1200F degrees. the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees F. even if the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel the building would not have fallen because the fire was not spread out enough throughout the building. there was also melted steel at the base of the building as described by workers which is why it was reported that a fire was steel burning deep underground over 5 days after the buildings came down.
@timberlandtim1 "the highest temperatures the fires reached was 1200F"
Where did you get this figure from, please? EVERYTHING I have read - including but not limited to the NIST report - says 1800°F. Why should I believe you instead of them?
"the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees F."
Irrelevant - NO EVIDENCE OF MELTED STEEL.
"the building would not have fallen because the fire was not spread out enough"
REAL engineers say different; what makes you smarter than them?
@TimReed22222 im done with idiots like u ignorant people like u can never handle the truth so u fight tooth and nail to protect the bullshit that u know is a lie because u dont have the balls to accept the truth. its the ignorant sheep like u that is led to slaughter. they told millions of people to stay home from work on 9/11 and thousands of jews stayed home. it was most stupid dumb ignorant white americans like u that ignored the message and went to work anyway and got slaughtered
@timberlandtim1 "the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees F"
When you and the author of this video start talking about temperatures necessary to melt steel, it is obvious that you went to the Rosie O'Donnell School of Engineering. Structural and Fire engineers do not consider the melting point of steel in their static analysis.
It is a stupid straw man argument that reveals the ignorance of those making it and those that accept it.
@nevillechamberlain1 Your a complete idiot for making such a stupid comment its clear u know nothing about what we are even talking about. and it even more clear you know nothing about engineering. do your self a favor and shut up.
Why don't you expound on your point about how the melting point of steel was a critical design parameter for the WTC??? Did you get your degree from the Rosie O'Donnell School of Engineering???
@TimReed22222 the good thing about it is me and my family are safe and informed we know the government are the terrorist.i feel sorry for your family because they will end up paying the price for your ignorance when the next 9/11 happens.
@saginata furthermore they cleaned the site up so fast they violated federal crime scene laws which says it is illegal to remove evidence from a crime scene.
believe it or not insiders in our own government were responsible for this tragedy not islamic terrorist. they flew a drone into the pentagon and tried to say the flight school reject hani hanjur did it when his flight instructor said he could not fly at all.
@TimReed22222 Hani Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license but nobody knows how he did. none of his instructors certified him or signed off to get the license. furthermore nobody knows where he got his license, it just appeared out of nowhere.
next the debris was destroyed and shipped off to china and other countries to use as scrap thats fact as shown in records. there was no time givin to conduct any kind of study.
@timberlandtim1 "Hani Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license but nobody knows how he did." WTF? He went to flight school & took the test like everyone else. "none of his instructors certified him or signed off to get the license." Instructors do not grant licenses, the FAA does - and they did for Hanjour in 1999.
"the debris was destroyed and shipped off ...there was no time givin to conduct any kind of study."
FALSE! What do you think THIS is? watch?v=35zZeNcIAZ8
@TimReed22222 they flew a drone into the pentagon. there is no evidence supporting a passenger jet being flown into the pentagon not even a single peace of evidence. the hole that was in the wall was no where near as big as it would have had to be if a jet hit . the wings where also not accounted for which would have left damage on the building but there is no damage at all where the wings would have hit. also the hole that was in the wall was too small compared to the nose of a jet
@timberlandtim1 there is no video tapes showing a passenger jet flying into the pentagon. the only thing that exist is a picture showing something leaving a white exaust trial and a very small vertical stablizer like that of a drone being covered up by a toll box in the pentagon grounds.
NIST already conducted fireproof-less UL263 tests on WTC floor replicas, the absolute highest mark noted for any steel members was 250C.
That jet fuel melted steel was the first lie pronounced on national television by "officials". Jet fuel itself burns at best at 300C in open air, and it is not currently blamed for the fires, but for starting them. However, as you can see above, not even the harshest fires could do anything to a structure like WTC.
Lol. House fires routinely reach 800-1500 F. Look it up. And they're not kick started by massive explosions.
So....why did they even put fire proofing on the columns? And its not rhetorical. Im serious. If this event couldnt weaken it, what other scenario would be worse than a jet striking it, causing a fireball and then it being unchecked for an hour. What made the builders fireproof it? If it cant burn and it wont even get hot enough to be weakened, why bother?
@Sgnoraa47 ".why did they even put fire proofing on the columns?"
I've been asking the Truthie fruits the same question for years, but they always run away or change the subject, since it shows that their theory -- to use the term loosely -- is a pathetic joke.
Which is probably why none of their phony-ass "scientists" has ever been able to publish a single paper either challenging NIST or proposing their own alternate theory of the collapse.
The problem with this movie is that its premise - disproving that jet-fuel fires melted steel - is completely off the mark.
In fact the melting of steel has NEVER been confirmed at all - and in any case melted steel is NOT part of any hypothesis about why the towers collapsed.
So while the video's overall conclusion - jet fuel did not melt steel - is correct ... it is also IRRELEVANT.
There should have been NO molten steel during or after yet we have it on video and the many witnesses who say they saw it + the satellite thermal data concludes an observation we have yet to explain.
HOW did it get there? Office fires don't do that, materials with that potential would NEVER even be allowed to enter the buildings in the first place.
@GnosticNinja "There should have been NO molten steel during or after"
I am not aware that ANYONE with relevant expertise - e.g., a metallurgist - has confirmed the melting of STEEL at the WTC. Are you? Witnesses also said "lava" so I guess there was a volcano down there, huh?
"the satellite thermal data concludes an observation we have yet to explain."
It HAS been explained; underground fires burned for weeks & the temperatures observed by NASA are consistent.
@dotsontom raging inferno? it was a choking, dying fire...indicated by the color of smoke. Big, fancy words don't prove it collapsed under melting conditions. Bush said it collapsed and he don't know jack about heat or metal.
@dotsontom There was sight of "molten steel", it can be seen in videos as the announcer points out and later confirmed by interviewed FDNY on the scene...unlike u and so many armchair Q.B.s The chemical reactions from demolitions would create molten metal as told by experts in the field. Later, the clean up crews said puddled steel was in the basement, not just regular mangled steel debris.
All of that is nice info, but at the temperatures that jet fuel burns, it reduces the load bearing capability by 50%. With most the fire proofing blown or sheared off, (why do they fireproof load bearing steel?) it is not necessary to melt the steel to cause the collapse. watch?v=hXb5M8qKrjw All this discussion about melting is a distraction.
@JRBeaman Very good point. The fire temperatures were more along th lines of the compartment fire temperatures of ordinary office combustibles (plastics, wood, paper, etc), most of the jet fuel burnt up right away. Office compartment fires can still get very hot. Why wouldn't they fireproof load bearing steel? I don't follow. Do you think they should have encased it in concrete?
@dotsontom The did fireproof the load bearing steel.
The jet debris knocked a lot of it off.
That has been documented.
Most of the orange flames falling from the windows has been shown to be office debris. There was no need to demo the building. All has been explained quite well. Jet fuel soaked into the office debris and burned quite a while. Like candle wick.
@JRBeaman I'm not disagreeing will you about why the buildings fell (I don't believe it was a demo), just on a few points. I'm just saying that you don't need burning jet fuel to reach the temperatures needed to weaken unprotected steel. The jet fuel did however act as an accelerant for growth.
So when you asked "Why do they fireproof load bearing steel?", was it just a rhetorical question? Because as an FPE, what goes off in my head is "of course you need to fireproofing steel in a high-rise".
I am still waiting for the truthers to produce ONE qualified metallurgist - you know, a scientist with expertise in such things - who will verify that any steel actually melted at the WTC site.
@TimReed22222 Your comment contradicts itself; truthers have scientists telling them steel doesn't melt and collapse like demolitions collapse a building... the sheep believe steel melted from fire. Which group are you calling out? The steel that melted and dripped down like lava as describd by fire fighters did so because of chemical reaction from demolitions.
@TimReed22222 The steel was seen dripping out from the area of damage; the melting would be characteristic of demolitions. FDNY said they saw metal dripping like in a foundry. Pools were seen and found in the basement... it didn't melt from fire. So, ur comment sais steel didn't melt and no proof, but there is visual/vocal confirmation...?
@TimReed22222 What else glows white as it's dripping out of a fire? Is what said to be found later in the basement, also. If u now something FDNY doesn't, then u should say something.
@TimReed22222 what else melts? everything else burns...charred black. If ur only argument is to make me prove what investigators and scientists have already said; quit trolling...ur not credible.
This is very interesting, but the fact of the matter is that at least one of the buildings DID fail assymetrically and then collapsed symmetrically which immediately invalidates the official version.
The same people who swore hand over mouth that this is the ONLY way that buildings could fail are the ones who practically swore that Saddam was on the verge of nuking half of Europe.
The official explanation is physically impossible on several counts, but you have Bush's word.
the initial temp is 25 C?? LOL? if i crash a plane with tremendous kinetic energy towards a building room and create a huge impact, will its temperature remain at 25 C? hmmmm...
Steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C, at 825°C the steel beams would have lost about 63.66% of it's strength combined with the silicon components of the electrical systems inside the building who explode and deliver a higher ammount of heat than jet fuel would be enough to make the towers drop.
Over 100 thousand tons of steel to absorb this heat , Remember the towers had a three tower in one build and had 13 thousand tons of lateral support and each floor was 10% over efficant !
In 1975 one tower did burn for 3 hours on 4 floors with the same heat and electrical systems inside the building ! They didnt drop @ 10 floors per sec fall rate!
I hate it when people like you tell me to "think for myself" because I do. The only way you would be satisfied by me thinking for myself would be if I adopted your opinion. I think for myself by thinking that organized religion and all the lunacy that if inspires and encourages is the cause of this terrible act. Considering the track record that organized religion has, something like 9/11 was bound to happen, that is the conclusion I have come up with personally. That's me thinking for myself.
I beleive steel loses 50% of its structural strengh at nearer 550C. But given the huge loading in excess of 1500 metric tons PER FLOOR above the impact areas conbined with the certain fact that many of the vertical beams would have been slightly bent by the impact in addition to the ones that broke(Something I have not seen mentioned anywhere) I beleive that temperatures well short of even 350C would have been sufficient to bring about a major collapse. Continued ...
@tpsossff But, what u fail to calculate is how does the weight of the top 20 or so floors collpase all the way into the basement? Too many experts; architects, engineers, fire fighters, all say it's unlikely these three buildings, especially 7 which collapsed identical to the other two without the structural damage that they sustained or heat exposure, were melted by fire.
It is known, from photographs taken from a police helicopter, that external support beams were starting to buckle just 18 minutes after impact. This suggests that many of the internal support beams had lost a high percentage of their load capacity simoply by being bent slightly out of straight and the heat from the fire merely accelerated this process
@tpsossff The fire is contained in the area it was hit, the smoke indicates a choking fire, the fuel lost most it's strength on impact explosion, and all four sides of the building were not damaged; making an even collapse highly unlikely. But yet, three buildings, one of which had only minor superficial damage from debris falling nearby, collapsed unlike any other structure fire ever before.
The collapse theory was concluded before any thorough analysis could be done.
You fail to mention the significant amount of aluminium introduced by the mass of the aircraft. This would possibly contribute to a Thermite reaction exceeding temperatures of 2000C.
I think it is quite acceptable to perceive that the amount of structural damage caused by impact together with disfigurement of 'keystone' structural objects by the temperatures you describe, would alone cause the catastrophic structural failure we have all witnessed.
theres nothing to point out it burns at 1800f the steel was 300 on the outside the inside couldnot be tested because u could not get inside there without being killed
Well let me start off by saying I do not wish to disrespect you but I disagree with everything you are saying, I apologize
Ok, so the fact is that jet fuel can burn at a max. of 1800f BUT that doesn't mean that is how hot it was during the time of impact and you nor I can prove how hot it was inside
Secondly, there were people shown waiving out windows at the point of impact DIRECTLY OVER where the plane entered
In conclusion, it was not 1800f anywhere in these buildings what so ever
thank you. its hard to tell people what really caused this when you are being criticized by ignorant people. too many people falsly trust our government too much to realize the truth about this and its unfortunate. if the US government knew nothing about the planning of 911, I CAN GUARENTEE THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT especially with all of the technology and weapons our military posesses
Think about it, no innocent Middle Easterners and Marines would be killed if we let these "terrorists" try and come to us unless some imaginary bad guys with box cutters could defeat our trained Air Force
If we did that then none of our soldiers would be dead, no one from other soil would be dead, and the terrorists would be dead. Mission Complete
But there's a reason why our government wants us over there
the government made billions and billions of dollars off of this and they used terrorism to take the attention away from them. so finely planned but at the same time they left so much evidence of their fault. If I could do ANYTHING to make Bush and all others that had advanced knowledge of this with an ulterior motive pay for their horrendous satanic sins, I would to the fullest extent.
Ur right sir i should've added the energy of the combustible materials for more accuracy but looking at the fire there was no oxygen at all so there was no way you could have burnt everything.... there was no infernos and just smoke indicating a very cold fire. example a small lighter has optimally got enough energy to burn a whole house but when you regulate the oxygen that you give it and limit its stichiometric efficiency it only makes a small flame that cant even burn your finger.
This video explains how even under optimal conditions the temperature could have only reached 366 degrees Fahrenheit... Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F). Not sure where "
dangerouslytalented" got their information about WTC1 and 2 impacting building 7... WTC1 & 2 fell straight down (like in a controlled demolition)
WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are the only steel-structure buildings ever to have collapsed (allegedly) as a result of fire... How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11? If the planes cause the collapse why didn't they fall down immediately after impact? If all the jet fuel burnt up after 10 minutes, how did the jet fuel fire melt the steel?
@Superballpogo ...Fireproofing was sheared off? what drugs are you on? reread what you wrote because that makes ZERO sense... the buildings were DEMOLISHED with EXPLOSIVES not jet fuel...I cannot even believe I am replying to this idiocy...
You guys still act like it was one factor at a time. An airliner brings SEVERAL fuels to any fire. The first is 9000 lbs of aviation fuel (30 TONS), the second is 60 TONS of Plastic, and 80 TONS of aluminum, both of which burn hotter than aviation fuel. Where do those fuels come from, the airliner, duh. Airliners ROUTINELY produce fires hot enough to totally consume their own aluminum skins.
Maybe you haven't figured it out, but skyscrapers have a variety of high temp fuels themselves.
Heat is irrelivant. Take a jet of that size and slam it into a building of that age at those speeds and see how many structural supports are busted. IE Rivets. Bust out enough of those and you don't have to melt anything.
[NICSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0 s.
it was hit by a hundred storeys of Tower One. Its weightbearing facade and its structural members were highly compromised, and the floorplans included the same structural systems of WTC1 and 2, that is vast clearspan floors supported from a central core. It was not built as sturdy as the Verizon building (built back in the 30s to house very heavy telephone exchange equipment),it was built with the minimum of concrete to save costs (the Mafia jacks up the price of concrete in NY).
Building Seven was hit by two of the largest, tallest skyscrapers in the world. It was built without internal pillars, each floor had a large amount of floor space without any columns. This means it is unsupported from below.Clearspan floors means offices without any columns in them, but a weaker structure.
The Verizon building is far stronger, as it had columns in every floor. The columns within the office space meant that the offices were more cramped, but the building stronger.
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating ~800ºC (1485ºF) - maximum temperature jet fuel burns
what he is proving is that there wasnt enough heat to collapse the trusses to start with, something NIST already admitted, even though they had lied about it from the start and filled everyones head with pure bull to start with and ergo justifying the war in afghanisnam and iraq. big mean circle.
Did he just claim that a fire burning in 8 floors would reach a max temp of 156 degrees? ROFLMAO!!!! This is awesome comedy and a brilliant piece of twoofer micky mouse science!!!
vengy I didn't really pay attention to what this guy saying since I was looking for evidence that there was melted steel at any location of the WTC.
No melted steel yet.
I did however catch how he tried to explain that as the fire grew and spread to different floors that it somehow became cooler.... If you believe that then I have some prime beach front property for you in N. Dakota... Maybe a bridge in London?
Oh wait, I see where you retards screwed up. His calculations may have been valid if he tried to spread a single story fire over 8 floors... However that wasn't the case was it? His "chemistry" fails to take into account that there are flammable things in office buildings doesn't it?
I'm telling you this is mickey mouse science at it's best. No wonder you twoofers can't see the fallacy of your own theories...
what he is proving is that there wasnt enough heat to collapse the trusses to start with, something NIST already admitted, even though they had lied about it from the start and filled everyones head with pure bull to start with and ergo justifying the war in afghanisnam and iraq. big mean circle.
I thought I just made it clear he hadn't proven anything. This genius just tried to tell me that a fire raging on 8 floors isn't as hot as a fire on 1 floor. I still don't see where ANYONE has proven there was melted steel ANYWHERE. I know this may come as a shock to you pinheads but the only people that claim the steel melted are you pinheads. You don't need thousand degree temperatures to weaken steel. That is a fact unlike the drivel on this video.
Look vengy, you seem to be quiet dense so let me make it clear. His hypothesis doesn't include the vast quantities of flammable material you find in any office building. He theorizes what happens if the fire on 1 floor heats 8 floors and not 8 floors burning on their own fater the jet fuel burns. If you knew ANYTHING you would realize that 8 floors burning and the SEVERE physical damage done by a 767 flying at over 400 knots into the building would be enough to make the building fall.
Well lets see, a 767 crashes in to a building taking out more than half the structural steel on one face. One plane hit squarely and damaged certainly did significant damage. Now a building designed to sway in the wind loses significant rigidity. The movement of the building is now also exaggerated and compounds the steel expanding and twisting due to uneven fires. I don't think the building is going to survive.
hgfob the report you keep throwing out is the one that verifies that WTC 1 & 2 were brought down by aircraft in an act of terror. So I am quite content that if you agree with the report then you are not trying to sell me on some "HYPOTHETICAL" conspiracy theory.
"hgfob the report you keep throwing out is the one that verifies that WTC 1 & 2 were brought down by aircraft in an act of terror"-
-since they were charged by Congress, to find out HOW and WHY, three buildings fell on 9-11...why did they STOP their investigation, when the IMPACT area was "poised to collapse"
There are NO FACTS to support the NIST HYPOTHESIS... ALL the evidence suggests something else entirely
The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes[NIST]
Wow how easy it is to overlook how many other flammable materials there are in an office bldg...
Tons of papaer, wooden furniture, paint on the walls and in storage closets. Carpets, tons of plastic materials and assorted electronics. Fuel for back up generators and fuilds for elevators and who knows what else.
"Tons of papaer, wooden furniture, paint on the walls and in storage closets. Carpets, tons of plastic"
basic office materials...the fire consumes, and it MOVES ON
as PROVEN by the impact area, the LACK of fire, and the woman STANDING there, HANGING onto the steel....but, OH YEA, it's hot enough to reach 'CRITICAL MASS'
So in your world only a boogy man is capable of doing what a 767 apparently accomplished? It's inconceivable that these office materials were in different concentrations around the building. Impossible that it got pushed into piles that smoldered like the hot coals of a wood fire that can last for hours? Reality stops functioning if the fire moves around? It is just the height of fiction to imagine a piece of metal on the outside perimeter being cool while the core is weakened?
"Reality stops functioning if the fire moves around? It is just the height of fiction to imagine a piece of metal on the outside perimeter being cool while the core is weakened?"-
{:-o
ooohhh k
YOUR problem, is that YOU are trying to understand this by relating things in your own life to help to explain it to you...or your just a fuckin idiot.....I think the latter
Well lets see most of the facts you presented were the very ones the NIST used to show how an airliner impacting a building which subsequently burns would collapse... So if you are are arguing that an airliner brought down the WTC then I guess we are in complete agreement...
SO TIRED OF THESE LAME ASS FAT GOVERNMENT CHEESE HAPPYMEAL FED BABIES THAT BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT SAYS AND WILL FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO DEFEND THIS LYING THIEVING MURDERING BACKSTABBING GOVERNMENT AND ITS LIES.
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
Don't forget the hidden chem trail canisters. God knows how hot this stuff may burn. ¬_¬
generischernutzer 4 months ago 2
@generischernutzer lol!
TimReed22222 4 months ago
Immediately after 9/11 the conventional wisdom was that the jet fuel had melted the steel. NBC, CNN, NOVA, Fox News, and BBC all said so, and quoted a variety of "experts" on the subject.
Of course this was nonsense. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.
For more information see my video:
The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
punxsutawneybarney 8 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney well... wood burns hot enough to melt steel... are blacksmiths from centuries ago part of the conspiracy? you dont need to liquefy it, just weaken it.
mrlowhe 7 months ago
@mrlowhe Yeah, sure wood burns hot enough to melt steel--why, I just melted a $3000 wood stove last week 'cause I left it burning all night. I hate it when that happens! :>)
punxsutawneybarney 7 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney ok, ao how do blacksmiths make weapons? oh yeah, i forgot they figured out how to make thermite explosive in the 1200s...
mrlowhe 7 months ago
@mrlowhe I'm not a gunsmith, but I think gunbarrels are bored, not forged. Wood does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
punxsutawneybarney 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@punxsutawneybarney "Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel"
Why this idiotic discussion about "melting" steel?
Is anyone dumb enough to think that steel maintains all its strength up to 2600F, and then suddenly fails when it liquifies?
Engineering manuals, plus mfr specs, list the failure temperature of structural steel as 1000F:
"Structural steel rapidly loses strength [above] 1,000 F and localized collapse is likely"
Source: tinyurl (dot) com/yexkzmb
blueshark69 5 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney "I think gunbarrels are bored, not forged"
Traditional blacksmiths still forge barrels the same old way -- wood or coal fire, with a jet of air pumped in by a foot-operated bellows. It forges, shapes, welds easily at low-red heat.
blueshark69 5 months ago
@blueshark69 Forge-welding is not melting. Wood does not burn hot enough to melt steel. You need coke and forced air to melt steel.
punxsutawneybarney 5 months ago
@mrlowhe i will send u a video on how blacksmiths melt metal and they surely do not use wood to do it.
timberlandtim1 2 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney the fire didnt melt the steel, it bent it, making the tower boe, leading to the collapse
PinkClownShoes 6 days ago
@PinkClownShoes @PinkClownShoes Molten steel was found in the rubble pile. So if the fire didn't melt the steel, what did?
What evidence have you that the fires bent the steel? NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to weaken it.
punxsutawneybarney 6 days ago
Private colleges like USC Engineering should be the first on board with this reopening of facts to this event. Public teaching institutions are not allowed to think about facts or truth. Think about it when your paying off that private school loan !
trojanlogger 9 months ago
Are you saying that if 8 floors were on fire, the temperature in that fire would only be 67 degrees? What if 30 floors were on fire? How cold would that fire be?
saginata 9 months ago
@saginata if you assume that the only source of fuel is the jet fuel then the temperature addition will be smaller as the mass of the burning object increases however in real life the actual building itself has got combustible materials too which need to be taken into account,
shorty40merza 9 months ago
@saginata there wasnt much fire in the buildings at all. there was a lady standing in the hole from the airplane proving that the temperature couldnt have been very hot and that there was very little if any fire at all. the toxic from the smoke and fumes is what caused people to jump.
nano thermite explosives were used to brings these buildings down and were placed throughout the buildings weeks in advance during emergency drills. no fire has ever cause a steel frame building to collapse.
timberlandtim1 2 months ago
@timberlandtim1 "there was a lady standing in the hole ... proving that ... there was very little if any fire at all."
A common misrepresentation (lie) of the "truth" movement. Obviously people in a burning building move AWAY from the fires, which is why they moved there; the fires had MOVED in the 45' since the crash. To where? This pic of the OTHER side of tower 1 was taken at the same time: tinypic.com/r/ase3l/5
Now does THAT look like "not much fire"?
TimReed22222 1 month ago
"nano thermite explosives were used to brings these buildings down"
Another lie! Nano thermite has NOT BEEN PROVED - just alleged by a team of dedicated truthers, NOT unbiased scientists. Show us *one* real thermite expert who says there was thermite in those buildings. I dare ya!
TimReed22222 1 month ago
@TimReed22222 theres wasnt much fire and thats a fact. people move away from the smoke from the fire becuase smoke actually kills more often then fire does. ask any fireman. next there was not enough fuel present to alow a continuous burning fire at high temperatures. jet fuel dosnt even burn hot enough to melt steel.
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
@timberlandtim1 "theres wasnt much fire and thats a fact."
I ask again: Does THIS - tinypic.com/r/ase3l/5 - look like not much fire? Looks like a hell of a lot to me!
"there was not enough fuel present to alow a continuous burning fire at high temperatures."
But was jet fuel the ONLY flammable substance in those towers?
"jet fuel dosnt even burn hot enough to melt steel."
True, but irrelevant; no one is claiming steel melted, and it's not part of any theory.
TimReed22222 1 month ago
@TimReed22222 the fires were no where near hot enough to even weaken the steel towers frames. black smiths cant even melt steel without using coal fires and oxygen intakes in a closed environment to make a fire hot enough to melt steel. and it takes hours to get the fire that hot even with all that. the world trade center fires were open air with no viable fuel such as coal and only burned for about an hour. not to mention some of the portions of the building were not even subject to fire.
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
@timberlandtim1 "the fires were no where near hot enough to even weaken the steel towers frames."
FALSE. The fires were estimated to have reached 1800°F or more; steel loses 1/2 its strength at around 1200°F.
And Melted steel is a straw man; didn't happen! But the fires were PLENTY hot enough to WEAKEN the steel, perhaps by 90%!
TimReed22222 1 month ago
@TimReed22222 false the highest temperatures the fires reached was 1200F degrees. the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees F. even if the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel the building would not have fallen because the fire was not spread out enough throughout the building. there was also melted steel at the base of the building as described by workers which is why it was reported that a fire was steel burning deep underground over 5 days after the buildings came down.
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
@timberlandtim1 "the highest temperatures the fires reached was 1200F"
Where did you get this figure from, please? EVERYTHING I have read - including but not limited to the NIST report - says 1800°F. Why should I believe you instead of them?
"the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees F."
Irrelevant - NO EVIDENCE OF MELTED STEEL.
"the building would not have fallen because the fire was not spread out enough"
REAL engineers say different; what makes you smarter than them?
TimReed22222 1 month ago
@TimReed22222 im done with idiots like u ignorant people like u can never handle the truth so u fight tooth and nail to protect the bullshit that u know is a lie because u dont have the balls to accept the truth. its the ignorant sheep like u that is led to slaughter. they told millions of people to stay home from work on 9/11 and thousands of jews stayed home. it was most stupid dumb ignorant white americans like u that ignored the message and went to work anyway and got slaughtered
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
@timberlandtim1 Dude, all I'm asking for is evidence to back up your claims.
WHERE is the evidence that the fires were not hotter than 1200°F?
WHERE is the evidence that 4000 Jews (or ANYONE) were warned of the attacks in advance?
WHERE is the proof of molten steel (not anecdotal tales but scientific PROOF)?
WHERE is the evidence for ANYTHING you have stated? And NO, lame truther videos are not evidence; they're garbage.
TimReed22222 1 month ago
@timberlandtim1 "the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees F"
When you and the author of this video start talking about temperatures necessary to melt steel, it is obvious that you went to the Rosie O'Donnell School of Engineering. Structural and Fire engineers do not consider the melting point of steel in their static analysis.
It is a stupid straw man argument that reveals the ignorance of those making it and those that accept it.
nevillechamberlain1 1 month ago
@nevillechamberlain1 Your a complete idiot for making such a stupid comment its clear u know nothing about what we are even talking about. and it even more clear you know nothing about engineering. do your self a favor and shut up.
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
@timberlandtim1
Why don't you expound on your point about how the melting point of steel was a critical design parameter for the WTC??? Did you get your degree from the Rosie O'Donnell School of Engineering???
LOL
nevillechamberlain1 1 month ago
@TimReed22222 the good thing about it is me and my family are safe and informed we know the government are the terrorist.i feel sorry for your family because they will end up paying the price for your ignorance when the next 9/11 happens.
the most ignorant are always the first to die
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
@saginata furthermore they cleaned the site up so fast they violated federal crime scene laws which says it is illegal to remove evidence from a crime scene.
believe it or not insiders in our own government were responsible for this tragedy not islamic terrorist. they flew a drone into the pentagon and tried to say the flight school reject hani hanjur did it when his flight instructor said he could not fly at all.
timberlandtim1 2 months ago
@timberlandtim1 "they cleaned the site up so fast they violated federal crime scene laws"
They were conducting a RESCUE OPERATION, so they HAD to move debris. But the evidence was preserved and studied, NOT destroyed.
"they flew a drone into the pentagon" ZERO evidence of this.
"and tried to say the flight school reject hani hanjur did it when his flight instructor said he could not fly at all."
False. Hani Hanjour held a COMMERCIAL PILOTS LICENSE. watch?v=BhDNy5LAo5o
TimReed22222 1 month ago
@TimReed22222 Hani Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license but nobody knows how he did. none of his instructors certified him or signed off to get the license. furthermore nobody knows where he got his license, it just appeared out of nowhere.
next the debris was destroyed and shipped off to china and other countries to use as scrap thats fact as shown in records. there was no time givin to conduct any kind of study.
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
@timberlandtim1 "Hani Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license but nobody knows how he did." WTF? He went to flight school & took the test like everyone else. "none of his instructors certified him or signed off to get the license." Instructors do not grant licenses, the FAA does - and they did for Hanjour in 1999.
"the debris was destroyed and shipped off ...there was no time givin to conduct any kind of study."
FALSE! What do you think THIS is? watch?v=35zZeNcIAZ8
TimReed22222 1 month ago
@TimReed22222 they flew a drone into the pentagon. there is no evidence supporting a passenger jet being flown into the pentagon not even a single peace of evidence. the hole that was in the wall was no where near as big as it would have had to be if a jet hit . the wings where also not accounted for which would have left damage on the building but there is no damage at all where the wings would have hit. also the hole that was in the wall was too small compared to the nose of a jet
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
@timberlandtim1 there is no video tapes showing a passenger jet flying into the pentagon. the only thing that exist is a picture showing something leaving a white exaust trial and a very small vertical stablizer like that of a drone being covered up by a toll box in the pentagon grounds.
timberlandtim1 1 month ago
@timberlandtim1 "there is no evidence supporting a passenger jet being flown into the pentagon not even a single peace of evidence."
Except the 100+ eye witnesses & the 757 debris that WAS recovered.
"the hole that was in the wall was too small compared to the nose of a jet"
WTF? You might want to check your math on that, Sparky: The hole was 16', the fuselage of a 757 is 12' across.
TimReed22222 1 month ago
f u terrorist
carlitos1259 11 months ago
NIST already conducted fireproof-less UL263 tests on WTC floor replicas, the absolute highest mark noted for any steel members was 250C.
That jet fuel melted steel was the first lie pronounced on national television by "officials". Jet fuel itself burns at best at 300C in open air, and it is not currently blamed for the fires, but for starting them. However, as you can see above, not even the harshest fires could do anything to a structure like WTC.
Never have in history.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Lol. House fires routinely reach 800-1500 F. Look it up. And they're not kick started by massive explosions.
So....why did they even put fire proofing on the columns? And its not rhetorical. Im serious. If this event couldnt weaken it, what other scenario would be worse than a jet striking it, causing a fireball and then it being unchecked for an hour. What made the builders fireproof it? If it cant burn and it wont even get hot enough to be weakened, why bother?
Sgnoraa47 1 year ago
@Sgnoraa47 ".why did they even put fire proofing on the columns?"
I've been asking the Truthie fruits the same question for years, but they always run away or change the subject, since it shows that their theory -- to use the term loosely -- is a pathetic joke.
Which is probably why none of their phony-ass "scientists" has ever been able to publish a single paper either challenging NIST or proposing their own alternate theory of the collapse.
blueshark69 5 months ago 20
8 people failed Math :-)
Mosley2 1 year ago
The problem with this movie is that its premise - disproving that jet-fuel fires melted steel - is completely off the mark.
In fact the melting of steel has NEVER been confirmed at all - and in any case melted steel is NOT part of any hypothesis about why the towers collapsed.
So while the video's overall conclusion - jet fuel did not melt steel - is correct ... it is also IRRELEVANT.
TimReed22222 1 year ago
@TimReed22222 Your statement is irrelevant.
There should have been NO molten steel during or after yet we have it on video and the many witnesses who say they saw it + the satellite thermal data concludes an observation we have yet to explain.
HOW did it get there? Office fires don't do that, materials with that potential would NEVER even be allowed to enter the buildings in the first place.
.
GnosticNinja 11 months ago
@GnosticNinja "There should have been NO molten steel during or after"
I am not aware that ANYONE with relevant expertise - e.g., a metallurgist - has confirmed the melting of STEEL at the WTC. Are you? Witnesses also said "lava" so I guess there was a volcano down there, huh?
"the satellite thermal data concludes an observation we have yet to explain."
It HAS been explained; underground fires burned for weeks & the temperatures observed by NASA are consistent.
TimReed22222 11 months ago
@dotsontom raging inferno? it was a choking, dying fire...indicated by the color of smoke. Big, fancy words don't prove it collapsed under melting conditions. Bush said it collapsed and he don't know jack about heat or metal.
threepercenter03 1 year ago
@dotsontom There was sight of "molten steel", it can be seen in videos as the announcer points out and later confirmed by interviewed FDNY on the scene...unlike u and so many armchair Q.B.s The chemical reactions from demolitions would create molten metal as told by experts in the field. Later, the clean up crews said puddled steel was in the basement, not just regular mangled steel debris.
threepercenter03 1 year ago
All of that is nice info, but at the temperatures that jet fuel burns, it reduces the load bearing capability by 50%. With most the fire proofing blown or sheared off, (why do they fireproof load bearing steel?) it is not necessary to melt the steel to cause the collapse. watch?v=hXb5M8qKrjw All this discussion about melting is a distraction.
JRBeaman 1 year ago
@JRBeaman Very good point. The fire temperatures were more along th lines of the compartment fire temperatures of ordinary office combustibles (plastics, wood, paper, etc), most of the jet fuel burnt up right away. Office compartment fires can still get very hot. Why wouldn't they fireproof load bearing steel? I don't follow. Do you think they should have encased it in concrete?
dotsontom 1 year ago
@dotsontom The did fireproof the load bearing steel.
The jet debris knocked a lot of it off.
That has been documented.
Most of the orange flames falling from the windows has been shown to be office debris. There was no need to demo the building. All has been explained quite well. Jet fuel soaked into the office debris and burned quite a while. Like candle wick.
JRBeaman 1 year ago
@JRBeaman I'm not disagreeing will you about why the buildings fell (I don't believe it was a demo), just on a few points. I'm just saying that you don't need burning jet fuel to reach the temperatures needed to weaken unprotected steel. The jet fuel did however act as an accelerant for growth.
So when you asked "Why do they fireproof load bearing steel?", was it just a rhetorical question? Because as an FPE, what goes off in my head is "of course you need to fireproofing steel in a high-rise".
dotsontom 1 year ago
@dotsontom Retorical.
I get it. Yeah.
JRBeaman 1 year ago
I am still waiting for the truthers to produce ONE qualified metallurgist - you know, a scientist with expertise in such things - who will verify that any steel actually melted at the WTC site.
--> This is me *not* holding my breath!
TimReed22222 1 year ago
@TimReed22222 Your comment contradicts itself; truthers have scientists telling them steel doesn't melt and collapse like demolitions collapse a building... the sheep believe steel melted from fire. Which group are you calling out? The steel that melted and dripped down like lava as describd by fire fighters did so because of chemical reaction from demolitions.
threepercenter03 1 year ago
@threepercenter03 I am calling out anyone who repeats UNFOUNDED and UNPROVEN claims that steel melted at all.
NO EVIDENCE of melted steel.
TimReed22222 1 year ago
@TimReed22222 The steel was seen dripping out from the area of damage; the melting would be characteristic of demolitions. FDNY said they saw metal dripping like in a foundry. Pools were seen and found in the basement... it didn't melt from fire. So, ur comment sais steel didn't melt and no proof, but there is visual/vocal confirmation...?
threepercenter03 1 year ago
@threepercenter03 "The steel was seen dripping out from the area of damage"
How do you know that was steel?
TimReed22222 1 year ago
@TimReed22222 What else glows white as it's dripping out of a fire? Is what said to be found later in the basement, also. If u now something FDNY doesn't, then u should say something.
threepercenter03 1 year ago
@threepercenter03 "What else glows white as it's dripping out of a fire?"
That's not an answer! Are you saying steel is the ONLY material that glows at temperature?
If you can't prove that, your argument fails.
TimReed22222 1 year ago
@TimReed22222 what else melts? everything else burns...charred black. If ur only argument is to make me prove what investigators and scientists have already said; quit trolling...ur not credible.
threepercenter03 1 year ago
@threepercenter03 "what else melts?"
Are you serious? You can't think of ANYTHING besides steel that melts??? Okaaay, let me help you here ...
Aluminum for one; lead for another - and BOTH were present in abundance in the tower.
TimReed22222 1 year ago
That 'stuff' pouring out the North Tower he was referring to on video was glowing bright red in broad daylight.
Does Aluminum & Lead typically do that?
"If you can't prove that, your argument fails" "what else glows" I would say 'not much dude'... certainly not that bright.
GnosticNinja 11 months ago
@GnosticNinja "That 'stuff' pouring out the North Tower... was glowing bright red in broad daylight. Does Aluminum & Lead typically do that?"
Typically? No.
But the circumstances in that tower were extremely ATYPICAL, weren't they?
TimReed22222 11 months ago
@TimReed22222 "Are you saying steel is the ONLY material that glows at temperature?"
Anyone who has ever melted or cast aluminum knows that it usually glows white, or white-ish, depending on the exact alloy and the temperature.
We melted it in a steel barrel in the back yard, with holes drilled around the bottom for air intake, using wood or charcoal.
blueshark69 5 months ago
Comment removed
dotsontom 1 year ago
Structural steel begins to melt at 2066 F or 1130C.
Did anyone see the steel fused into the concrete?
Or hear the eyewitness evidence of pools of molten steel?
Since it induspitably melted there had to be minimum temperatures of 2066 Fahrenheit.
A normal office fire doesnt get anywhere near hot enough to melt the steel.
Very few things do in fact .
Thermite and thermate could though.
zenoist2 1 year ago
dude u sound like niko bellic
darkifyundertaker 1 year ago
This is very interesting, but the fact of the matter is that at least one of the buildings DID fail assymetrically and then collapsed symmetrically which immediately invalidates the official version.
The same people who swore hand over mouth that this is the ONLY way that buildings could fail are the ones who practically swore that Saddam was on the verge of nuking half of Europe.
The official explanation is physically impossible on several counts, but you have Bush's word.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
the initial temp is 25 C?? LOL? if i crash a plane with tremendous kinetic energy towards a building room and create a huge impact, will its temperature remain at 25 C? hmmmm...
joblagz 1 year ago
BOO YAA
MASTERSAIS 1 year ago
--whho said that the jet fuel fires melted the steel?--
--the only claim that was made - was the the steel was softened by the fires - which is entirely possible--
GINO868 2 years ago
Steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C, at 825°C the steel beams would have lost about 63.66% of it's strength combined with the silicon components of the electrical systems inside the building who explode and deliver a higher ammount of heat than jet fuel would be enough to make the towers drop.
amayagab 2 years ago 2
Over 100 thousand tons of steel to absorb this heat , Remember the towers had a three tower in one build and had 13 thousand tons of lateral support and each floor was 10% over efficant !
In 1975 one tower did burn for 3 hours on 4 floors with the same heat and electrical systems inside the building ! They didnt drop @ 10 floors per sec fall rate!
And then there is No7 as well ?
come on , COME ON !
Think for our self , not agree with TV
krs306 2 years ago
I hate it when people like you tell me to "think for myself" because I do. The only way you would be satisfied by me thinking for myself would be if I adopted your opinion. I think for myself by thinking that organized religion and all the lunacy that if inspires and encourages is the cause of this terrible act. Considering the track record that organized religion has, something like 9/11 was bound to happen, that is the conclusion I have come up with personally. That's me thinking for myself.
amayagab 2 years ago
@amayagab
I beleive steel loses 50% of its structural strengh at nearer 550C. But given the huge loading in excess of 1500 metric tons PER FLOOR above the impact areas conbined with the certain fact that many of the vertical beams would have been slightly bent by the impact in addition to the ones that broke(Something I have not seen mentioned anywhere) I beleive that temperatures well short of even 350C would have been sufficient to bring about a major collapse. Continued ...
tpsossff 1 year ago
@tpsossff But, what u fail to calculate is how does the weight of the top 20 or so floors collpase all the way into the basement? Too many experts; architects, engineers, fire fighters, all say it's unlikely these three buildings, especially 7 which collapsed identical to the other two without the structural damage that they sustained or heat exposure, were melted by fire.
threepercenter03 1 year ago
@amayagab
Continued .....
It is known, from photographs taken from a police helicopter, that external support beams were starting to buckle just 18 minutes after impact. This suggests that many of the internal support beams had lost a high percentage of their load capacity simoply by being bent slightly out of straight and the heat from the fire merely accelerated this process
tpsossff 1 year ago
@tpsossff The fire is contained in the area it was hit, the smoke indicates a choking fire, the fuel lost most it's strength on impact explosion, and all four sides of the building were not damaged; making an even collapse highly unlikely. But yet, three buildings, one of which had only minor superficial damage from debris falling nearby, collapsed unlike any other structure fire ever before.
The collapse theory was concluded before any thorough analysis could be done.
threepercenter03 1 year ago
You fail to mention the significant amount of aluminium introduced by the mass of the aircraft. This would possibly contribute to a Thermite reaction exceeding temperatures of 2000C.
I think it is quite acceptable to perceive that the amount of structural damage caused by impact together with disfigurement of 'keystone' structural objects by the temperatures you describe, would alone cause the catastrophic structural failure we have all witnessed.
bsyndrom 2 years ago
Plates or pieces of aluminium wont do the job, you need powdered aluminium.. and how do you explain the presence of barium nitrate in the dust aswell?
Open your eyes man, it's what we need for this to be solved, dont be ignorant
TeenageTitFreaks 2 years ago 2
theres nothing to point out it burns at 1800f the steel was 300 on the outside the inside couldnot be tested because u could not get inside there without being killed
golfisgreat123 2 years ago
Well let me start off by saying I do not wish to disrespect you but I disagree with everything you are saying, I apologize
Ok, so the fact is that jet fuel can burn at a max. of 1800f BUT that doesn't mean that is how hot it was during the time of impact and you nor I can prove how hot it was inside
Secondly, there were people shown waiving out windows at the point of impact DIRECTLY OVER where the plane entered
In conclusion, it was not 1800f anywhere in these buildings what so ever
DopeMC209 2 years ago
Type in "Woman Waving WTC7" on google images and one of many images will be there
If the point of impact wasn't hot enough to burn SKIN, then anywhere else beside the point of impact should be less hot, don't you agree?
SO, I cannot see how these buildings fell at free fall speed when the origin of the fire quite frankly didn't do much
DopeMC209 2 years ago
that lady was freaking out as she was being burned alive
golfisgreat123 2 years ago
Well let's say she eventually burned alive which is inevidable because the whole place blew up
BUT let's say the heat from that building eventually got to her
If it takes that long to kill her, how did all that steel melt only minutes later?
Because people and steel are huge jumps from how long it takes for them to burn
Just a question
DopeMC209 2 years ago
the wtc did not collapse mins after impact it was more like a hour and a half
golfisgreat123 2 years ago
I didn't say that
I said minutes after she was killed
Not mintues after the impact
DopeMC209 2 years ago
Well let's say she was eventually killed by the heat which is inevitable because the whole place just blew up
BUT let's say after a while it got to her. Well how did all that steel just miraculously melt only minutes later?
That seems inconsistant. It can barely kill a woman but for the first time in history, melt steel?
It's just a question
DopeMC209 2 years ago
thank you. its hard to tell people what really caused this when you are being criticized by ignorant people. too many people falsly trust our government too much to realize the truth about this and its unfortunate. if the US government knew nothing about the planning of 911, I CAN GUARENTEE THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT especially with all of the technology and weapons our military posesses
fightforfreefreedom 2 years ago 2
Exactly my point
And why go out to the Middle East to protect Americans when we could leave the protection to our Air Force?
If they have to hi jack OUR planes to get to us, why go over there and make it easier for them unless we wanted to obtain something like oil
DopeMC209 2 years ago
Think about it, no innocent Middle Easterners and Marines would be killed if we let these "terrorists" try and come to us unless some imaginary bad guys with box cutters could defeat our trained Air Force
If we did that then none of our soldiers would be dead, no one from other soil would be dead, and the terrorists would be dead. Mission Complete
But there's a reason why our government wants us over there
DopeMC209 2 years ago
the government made billions and billions of dollars off of this and they used terrorism to take the attention away from them. so finely planned but at the same time they left so much evidence of their fault. If I could do ANYTHING to make Bush and all others that had advanced knowledge of this with an ulterior motive pay for their horrendous satanic sins, I would to the fullest extent.
fightforfreefreedom 2 years ago
it doesent have to burn 100% the FACT is jet fuel burns at 1800f so thats how hot the inside of the wtc was
golfisgreat123 2 years ago
jet fuel burns at 1800f steel melts at 2500f at 1800 the steel would be glowing red from the heat and would lose 80% of its power
golfisgreat123 2 years ago
Ur right sir i should've added the energy of the combustible materials for more accuracy but looking at the fire there was no oxygen at all so there was no way you could have burnt everything.... there was no infernos and just smoke indicating a very cold fire. example a small lighter has optimally got enough energy to burn a whole house but when you regulate the oxygen that you give it and limit its stichiometric efficiency it only makes a small flame that cant even burn your finger.
shorty40merza 2 years ago
Comment removed
jmgrant121212 2 years ago
how did i terrorize you? does science and knowledge and truth terrorize you ? then you must be the master of ignorance right ?
shorty40merza 2 years ago
This video explains how even under optimal conditions the temperature could have only reached 366 degrees Fahrenheit... Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F). Not sure where "
dangerouslytalented" got their information about WTC1 and 2 impacting building 7... WTC1 & 2 fell straight down (like in a controlled demolition)
itsjustadamnedname 2 years ago
WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are the only steel-structure buildings ever to have collapsed (allegedly) as a result of fire... How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11? If the planes cause the collapse why didn't they fall down immediately after impact? If all the jet fuel burnt up after 10 minutes, how did the jet fuel fire melt the steel?
itsjustadamnedname 2 years ago
In the plane crash, fireproofing was sheared off the steel. In 1975, it was still intact.
Jet fuel fires didn't melt the steel, it weakened it to the point of sagging, and finnally collapsed.
Superballpogo 2 years ago
@Superballpogo ...Fireproofing was sheared off? what drugs are you on? reread what you wrote because that makes ZERO sense... the buildings were DEMOLISHED with EXPLOSIVES not jet fuel...I cannot even believe I am replying to this idiocy...
itsjustadamnedname 10 months ago
LDVWlUy0BWo Steven Jones? Nano Thermite found in the dust in 2009?
itsjustadamnedname 10 months ago
You guys still act like it was one factor at a time. An airliner brings SEVERAL fuels to any fire. The first is 9000 lbs of aviation fuel (30 TONS), the second is 60 TONS of Plastic, and 80 TONS of aluminum, both of which burn hotter than aviation fuel. Where do those fuels come from, the airliner, duh. Airliners ROUTINELY produce fires hot enough to totally consume their own aluminum skins.
Maybe you haven't figured it out, but skyscrapers have a variety of high temp fuels themselves.
Merlin5x5 2 years ago
Heat is irrelivant. Take a jet of that size and slam it into a building of that age at those speeds and see how many structural supports are busted. IE Rivets. Bust out enough of those and you don't have to melt anything.
Sheesh an these guys want to sound like geniuses.
lightpaws25 2 years ago
"a building of that age"
that quote has NO relevance
"and see how many structural supports are busted."-
-in the IMPACT area...not the rest of the building
"Bust out enough of those"-
lol...I think YOU should go back to the place where YOU busted out from
hgfbob 2 years ago
Left wing Nutcase
rmarkley940 2 years ago
clueless mute
hgfbob 2 years ago
I am not a clueless mute I am sensible. Even Bush isnt thick enough to kill this many people on an inside job. THERE IS NO 911 CONSPIRACY MORONS.
rmarkley940 2 years ago 2
[NICSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0 s.
hgfbob 2 years ago
And this means?
rmarkley940 2 years ago
from the WTC7 NIST report, after they measured, free fall ACCELERATION, in the beginning collapse of 7.
and here is Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST, saying...
"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"
watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=ch annel_page
as soon as the kink is formed, the HVAC, 'other' PentHouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft.
hgfbob 2 years ago
Acceleration=z+asefto the power of9
see nyone can make up random gibberish and claim that they are facts.
rmarkley940 2 years ago 2
"see, anyone can make up ...and claim they are facts"-
-ummm...that quote IS fact...to bad YOUR too stupid to understand
hgfbob 2 years ago
ummm no the fact is i dont understand engeneering gibberish cause im normal
rmarkley940 2 years ago
Explain Building 7... It wasn't hit by a plane...genius
SammieIdris 2 years ago
it was hit by a hundred storeys of Tower One. Its weightbearing facade and its structural members were highly compromised, and the floorplans included the same structural systems of WTC1 and 2, that is vast clearspan floors supported from a central core. It was not built as sturdy as the Verizon building (built back in the 30s to house very heavy telephone exchange equipment),it was built with the minimum of concrete to save costs (the Mafia jacks up the price of concrete in NY).
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
Lehmans terms please.
rmarkley940 2 years ago
how do you mean?
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
Put it in terms that regular people cn understand please.
rmarkley940 2 years ago
Building Seven was hit by two of the largest, tallest skyscrapers in the world. It was built without internal pillars, each floor had a large amount of floor space without any columns. This means it is unsupported from below.Clearspan floors means offices without any columns in them, but a weaker structure.
The Verizon building is far stronger, as it had columns in every floor. The columns within the office space meant that the offices were more cramped, but the building stronger.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
Thank you, now what does this have to do with 9/11
rmarkley940 2 years ago
Both building 7 and the Verizon building were hit by WTC 1 and 2 collapsing.
I was pointing out why the Verizon building survived when Building 7 collapsed.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
Boner
rmarkley940 2 years ago
Why do you say that?
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
I have no idea who put that, propbably one of my moron friends.
rmarkley940 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ROTFLMAO....YOUR an IDIOT
and a LIAR...shilly PUTZ
1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating ~800ºC (1485ºF) - maximum temperature jet fuel burns
hgfbob 2 years ago
OK Vengance, I will bite... What do YOU believe happened? Who did this, how did they do it, and WHY did they do it?
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what he is proving is that there wasnt enough heat to collapse the trusses to start with, something NIST already admitted, even though they had lied about it from the start and filled everyones head with pure bull to start with and ergo justifying the war in afghanisnam and iraq. big mean circle.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
gotta a lot of college grads coming thru. take a look.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
Did he just claim that a fire burning in 8 floors would reach a max temp of 156 degrees? ROFLMAO!!!! This is awesome comedy and a brilliant piece of twoofer micky mouse science!!!
alfimon 2 years ago
i see you found the link, too bad you cant do chemistry.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
chemistry? This is NOT chemistry it's pure bullshit...
8 floor fire will only heat up to 165... you are a comedian and don't even realize it.
alfimon 2 years ago
that is basic chemistry 101, if you had taken it you would know that.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
vengy I didn't really pay attention to what this guy saying since I was looking for evidence that there was melted steel at any location of the WTC.
No melted steel yet.
I did however catch how he tried to explain that as the fire grew and spread to different floors that it somehow became cooler.... If you believe that then I have some prime beach front property for you in N. Dakota... Maybe a bridge in London?
alfimon 2 years ago
Oh wait, I see where you retards screwed up. His calculations may have been valid if he tried to spread a single story fire over 8 floors... However that wasn't the case was it? His "chemistry" fails to take into account that there are flammable things in office buildings doesn't it?
I'm telling you this is mickey mouse science at it's best. No wonder you twoofers can't see the fallacy of your own theories...
alfimon 2 years ago
what he is proving is that there wasnt enough heat to collapse the trusses to start with, something NIST already admitted, even though they had lied about it from the start and filled everyones head with pure bull to start with and ergo justifying the war in afghanisnam and iraq. big mean circle.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
I thought I just made it clear he hadn't proven anything. This genius just tried to tell me that a fire raging on 8 floors isn't as hot as a fire on 1 floor. I still don't see where ANYONE has proven there was melted steel ANYWHERE. I know this may come as a shock to you pinheads but the only people that claim the steel melted are you pinheads. You don't need thousand degree temperatures to weaken steel. That is a fact unlike the drivel on this video.
alfimon 2 years ago
he proves a lot if you know chemistry. if you dont know chemistry you'll have to learn it to know what he is saying.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
Look vengy, you seem to be quiet dense so let me make it clear. His hypothesis doesn't include the vast quantities of flammable material you find in any office building. He theorizes what happens if the fire on 1 floor heats 8 floors and not 8 floors burning on their own fater the jet fuel burns. If you knew ANYTHING you would realize that 8 floors burning and the SEVERE physical damage done by a 767 flying at over 400 knots into the building would be enough to make the building fall.
alfimon 2 years ago
SEVERE physical damage done by a 767 flying at over 400 knots into the building would be enough to make the building fall.-
maybe the IMPACT AREA....NOT the building
hgfbob 2 years ago
Ok so if the buildings impact area is 2/3rds of the way up and burns for 45 minutes it is feasible the building would collapse?
alfimon 2 years ago
"Ok so if the buildings impact area is 2/3rds of the way up and burns for 45 minutes it is feasible the building would collapse?"-
-NO....why would it
hgfbob 2 years ago
Well lets see, a 767 crashes in to a building taking out more than half the structural steel on one face. One plane hit squarely and damaged certainly did significant damage. Now a building designed to sway in the wind loses significant rigidity. The movement of the building is now also exaggerated and compounds the steel expanding and twisting due to uneven fires. I don't think the building is going to survive.
alfimon 2 years ago
"taking out more than half the structural steel on one face"
NIST: Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively.
The global analysis with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity
"I don't think the building is going to survive."-
-and that is YOUR uneducated opinion
hgfbob 2 years ago
NIST: Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively.
The global analysis with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity
I don't see fire or heat mentioned here
-and that is your biased and less than objective cherry picked statement
alfimon 2 years ago
The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes[NIST]
NO floor assemblies collapsed from the heat that was present that day in the towers [Underwriters Laboratories]
no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99
recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133
no core column examined showed temp. above 250C
NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132
hgfbob 2 years ago
hgfob the report you keep throwing out is the one that verifies that WTC 1 & 2 were brought down by aircraft in an act of terror. So I am quite content that if you agree with the report then you are not trying to sell me on some "HYPOTHETICAL" conspiracy theory.
alfimon 2 years ago
"hgfob the report you keep throwing out is the one that verifies that WTC 1 & 2 were brought down by aircraft in an act of terror"-
-since they were charged by Congress, to find out HOW and WHY, three buildings fell on 9-11...why did they STOP their investigation, when the IMPACT area was "poised to collapse"
There are NO FACTS to support the NIST HYPOTHESIS... ALL the evidence suggests something else entirely
hgfbob 2 years ago
No hgfob, some of the evidence suggests something else entirely. All of the evidence would sink your something else.... entirely...
alfimon 2 years ago
". All of the evidence would sink your something else.... entirely-
then supply it instead of contradicting
please provide this,'undeniable' evidence
hgfbob 2 years ago
hgfob it's already proven. In case you haven't noticed you people who disagree with the conclusion need to come up with evidence.
alfimon 2 years ago
"hgfob it's already proven"-
-ummm...no......it's ONLY a HYPOTHESIS, that has VERY LITTLE FACTS to back it up
hgfbob 2 years ago
hgfob all the facts back it up, very few facts back your hypothesis up...
alfimon 2 years ago
"hgfob all the facts back it up"-
-then POST THEM....500 characters is plenty, ...with 500 to spare
hgfbob 2 years ago
wtc(dot)nist(dot)gov/
screwloosechange
debunking911myths
and the list goes on...
You're right and I even have room to spare!
alfimon 2 years ago
The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes[NIST]
Wow how easy it is to overlook how many other flammable materials there are in an office bldg...
Tons of papaer, wooden furniture, paint on the walls and in storage closets. Carpets, tons of plastic materials and assorted electronics. Fuel for back up generators and fuilds for elevators and who knows what else.
alfimon 2 years ago
"Tons of papaer, wooden furniture, paint on the walls and in storage closets. Carpets, tons of plastic"
basic office materials...the fire consumes, and it MOVES ON
as PROVEN by the impact area, the LACK of fire, and the woman STANDING there, HANGING onto the steel....but, OH YEA, it's hot enough to reach 'CRITICAL MASS'
hgfbob 2 years ago
So in your world only a boogy man is capable of doing what a 767 apparently accomplished? It's inconceivable that these office materials were in different concentrations around the building. Impossible that it got pushed into piles that smoldered like the hot coals of a wood fire that can last for hours? Reality stops functioning if the fire moves around? It is just the height of fiction to imagine a piece of metal on the outside perimeter being cool while the core is weakened?
alfimon 2 years ago
"Reality stops functioning if the fire moves around? It is just the height of fiction to imagine a piece of metal on the outside perimeter being cool while the core is weakened?"-
{:-o
ooohhh k
YOUR problem, is that YOU are trying to understand this by relating things in your own life to help to explain it to you...or your just a fuckin idiot.....I think the latter
hgfbob 2 years ago
Oh my and what do you know about my life that would make you believe I can't relate?
I think you hate being wrong to the point that you start calling names when you are shown up.
alfimon 2 years ago
"I think you hate being wrong to the point that you start calling names when you are shown up."-
-wrong about WHAT...everything I posted came from FACTS....WHAT do YOU have?
hgfbob 2 years ago
Well lets see most of the facts you presented were the very ones the NIST used to show how an airliner impacting a building which subsequently burns would collapse... So if you are are arguing that an airliner brought down the WTC then I guess we are in complete agreement...
alfimon 2 years ago