Fire - not explosives - brought 7 WTC down on 9/11, says report

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: dphantom
As we all are seeing, people like event8horizon cannot keep their story straight. It changes constantly and completely discredits their theory of a conspiracy of Jews, Bush and anyone else they do not like.

Perhaps if we ignore the loons, they will just go away.....

Unfortunately, they won't go away. The internet sucks in the hands of idiots.

 

[event8horizon]

theres a live event going on right now with the lead investigator taking questions

http://event.on24.com/clients/...d=18920406&mode=launch

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Let's see, airliner slams into building full of jet fuel and people are surprised that the place heats up and starts melting things? I fail to see what this video demonstrates, besides the fact that the fires burning in the WTC were incredibly hot and definitely hot enough for steel to lose nearly all its structural integrity.

the aluminum on airliners can melt just from the friction of running off the runway, let alone from slamming into an office building at 500 mph. so, it's not at all surprising that there would be hot aluminum coming out the side of the building.

 

[event8horizon]

beau-
yeah aluminum....or could it have been this....this also looks like what was flowing out of the building.

http://video.google.com/videos...&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning."

they assume but without any hardcore forensic (such as fema sample 1) then it is a hypothesis. so the above link is a hypothesis.

as for:
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
how do they know that the steel was not cut before it collapsed. they didnt check for explosive markers. then again.....damn no evidence but a sample from fema. and the only theory ive seen that even tries to explain what caused the sample to look like that is that british born canadian guys hypo.

 

[Brainonska511]

Event8 - You'll NEVER be satisfied. Even if they had used the FEMA sample of steel (though useless to the NIST investigation), you'd find something else to complain about. There is just no point trying to argue with you as you'll just nitpick everything, twist words, pull words out of context, pull video out of context, and on and on and on and on and on......

 

[event8horizon]

beau-
check out this vid of melted aluminum that they tried to make look like what was flowing out of the building.

http://video.google.com/videos...20aluminum&hl=en&emb=0

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
yeah aluminum....or could it have been this....this also looks like what was flowing out of the building.

http://video.google.com/videos...&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning."

they assume but without any hardcore forensic (such as fema sample 1) then it is a hypothesis. so the above link is a hypothesis.

as for:
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
how do they know that the steel was not cut before it collapsed. they didnt check for explosive markers. then again.....damn no evidence but a sample from fema. and the only theory ive seen that even tries to explain what caused the sample to look like that is that british born canadian guys hypo.

Without any forensics? I'm sorry, so the NIST should sent investigators up to the WTC while it was on fire and tested to see what that substance was? THERE IS NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE LEFT OF THE FLOORS OF THE WTC WHERE THE PLANES HIT. NONE.

There is NO evidence that explosives were planted. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Like I said earlier, should the NIST also have tested for the presence of nuclear contamination in a small nuclear bomb brought the towers down? No, because there's no evidence for that scenario either.

IF explosives were planted, truthers seem to believe it was thermite, despite the fact that thermite doesn't explode and that thousands of pounds would have needed to be put into place prior to the attack. During the attack, the thermite would have needed to be in direct contact with the steel to melt it.

As for your sample, the NIST says that the fires within the rubble could EASILY have exceeded the temperature required to melt steel, but that fact alone indicates nothing about the temperatures in the building itself.

Look, if someone "cut the beams" prior to the attack, then why fly an airplane into the building? JUST CUT THE BUILDING APART. If you're already there, just destroy the damn thing by cutting the beams.


Here is my hypothesis for why the WTC came down: Chuck Norris kicked it down. By your logic, my hypothesis has just as much validity as the NIST's, which simply isn't true. The NIST is the one of the premier spots where building disaster research is done, these people aren't just making up hypotheses, they're professionals.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Event8 - You'll NEVER be satisfied. Even if they had used the FEMA sample of steel (though useless to the NIST investigation), you'd find something else to complain about. There is just no point trying to argue with you as you'll just nitpick everything, twist words, pull words out of context, pull video out of context, and on and on and on and on and on......

your right brain, im not satisfied with the investigation....i hate that 911 happened and ill continue to look for answers. how many times has the bush admin lied to us. with science, i hope people "nitpick" every detail. im not sure how i twist words or pull words out of context or pull video out of context.......

 

[event8horizon]

im watching that live event right now, they just got stumped on the speed wtc7 fell and said something about having to correct a sentence in their "final report"???? i thought this was their final report.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
check out this vid of melted aluminum that they tried to make look like what was flowing out of the building.

http://video.google.com/videos...20aluminum&hl=en&emb=0

What does that video show? Thermite melts aluminum? No way! You know what the most interesting thing about that video is? That you can see how unlikely it was that thermite brought down the WTC. Look at how it really is only capable of melting a small hole in the hood of the car because, despite being very hot, it flows quickly off the sides of the hood. Now tell me how thermite melted through vertical steel girders that are substantially thicker and buried in walls around the exterior of the building?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
im watching that live event right now, they just got stumped on the speed wtc7 fell and said something about having to correct a sentence in their "final report"???? i thought this was their final report.

No, they are releasing a prelim report first.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Event8 - You'll NEVER be satisfied. Even if they had used the FEMA sample of steel (though useless to the NIST investigation), you'd find something else to complain about. There is just no point trying to argue with you as you'll just nitpick everything, twist words, pull words out of context, pull video out of context, and on and on and on and on and on......

your right brain, im not satisfied with the investigation....i hate that 911 happened and ill continue to look for answers. how many times has the bush admin lied to us. with science, i hope people "nitpick" every detail. im not sure how i twist words or pull words out of context or pull video out of context.......

Basically, you do so little critical thinking it astounds me. You copy and paste articles from truther websites left and right and believe what they say hook, line, and sinker. You hold FEMA and the NIST to an impossibly high standard, but issue free passes to your buddies like Richard Gage, who is barely qualified to be an architect, no less an authority on 110 story buildings collapsing.

Pretty much you twist the facts to fit your own twisted view of reality. Rather than examining the facts presented by truther websites, you just blindly accept them even though most of them are flat-out wrong.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
yeah aluminum....or could it have been this....this also looks like what was flowing out of the building.

http://video.google.com/videos...&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning."

they assume but without any hardcore forensic (such as fema sample 1) then it is a hypothesis. so the above link is a hypothesis.

as for:
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
how do they know that the steel was not cut before it collapsed. they didnt check for explosive markers. then again.....damn no evidence but a sample from fema. and the only theory ive seen that even tries to explain what caused the sample to look like that is that british born canadian guys hypo.

Without any forensics? I'm sorry, so the NIST should sent investigators up to the WTC while it was on fire and tested to see what that substance was? THERE IS NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE LEFT OF THE FLOORS OF THE WTC WHERE THE PLANES HIT. NONE.

There is NO evidence that explosives were planted. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Like I said earlier, should the NIST also have tested for the presence of nuclear contamination in a small nuclear bomb brought the towers down? No, because there's no evidence for that scenario either.

IF explosives were planted, truthers seem to believe it was thermite, despite the fact that thermite doesn't explode and that thousands of pounds would have needed to be put into place prior to the attack. During the attack, the thermite would have needed to be in direct contact with the steel to melt it.

As for your sample, the NIST says that the fires within the rubble could EASILY have exceeded the temperature required to melt steel, but that fact alone indicates nothing about the temperatures in the building itself.

Look, if someone "cut the beams" prior to the attack, then why fly an airplane into the building? JUST CUT THE BUILDING APART. If you're already there, just destroy the damn thing by cutting the beams.


Here is my hypothesis for why the WTC came down: Chuck Norris kicked it down. By your logic, my hypothesis has just as much validity as the NIST's, which simply isn't true. The NIST is the one of the premier spots where building disaster research is done, these people aren't just making up hypotheses, they're professionals.

im talking about treating the debris like a crime scene and analyzing it as such. again, the nist stated they didnt check for explosive markers.
explain to me how fires in the pile of rubble could melt steel. like i said before, the only hypo ive seen even attempt this is frank greening (thanks to tlc).

nist's whole hypo centers around col 79. did they have col 79 to physically look at...NO. we have video but hardcore forensic evidence would help out tremendously.

as for your last sentence think about this article:
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id324.html
In addition to overhearing in Hebrew, the statements, ?The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September?, and ?Don?t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything?, the source also reports that he overheard one of the three men in the Gomel Chesed Cemetery say, ?The Arabs are so stupid. They don?t even imagine that we are using them.? This comment should not be overlooked.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
check out this vid of melted aluminum that they tried to make look like what was flowing out of the building.

http://video.google.com/videos...20aluminum&hl=en&emb=0

What does that video show? Thermite melts aluminum? No way! You know what the most interesting thing about that video is? That you can see how unlikely it was that thermite brought down the WTC. Look at how it really is only capable of melting a small hole in the hood of the car because, despite being very hot, it flows quickly off the sides of the hood. Now tell me how thermite melted through vertical steel girders that are substantially thicker and buried in walls around the exterior of the building?

no, that was melted aluminum that they mixed with carpet and stuff like that. it doesnt look anything like what came out of the building.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
check out this vid of melted aluminum that they tried to make look like what was flowing out of the building.

http://video.google.com/videos...20aluminum&hl=en&emb=0

What does that video show? Thermite melts aluminum? No way! You know what the most interesting thing about that video is? That you can see how unlikely it was that thermite brought down the WTC. Look at how it really is only capable of melting a small hole in the hood of the car because, despite being very hot, it flows quickly off the sides of the hood. Now tell me how thermite melted through vertical steel girders that are substantially thicker and buried in walls around the exterior of the building?

no, that was melted aluminum that they mixed with carpet and stuff like that. it doesnt look anything like what came out of the building.

You linked to a video about a car getting melted by thermite.

If you're talking about the "aluminum melting" videos on the left-hand side, these people have no credibility, aren't scientists, and, most importantly, they aren't heating the metal inside a raging inferno on top of a building. There's no indication of what temperature is achieved or even whether that's aluminum or not that they're melting. They're heating into a container, I don't see it flowing down the side of a building... which is what is shown in the video.

Seriously, these videos are insultingly stupid.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
check out this vid of melted aluminum that they tried to make look like what was flowing out of the building.

http://video.google.com/videos...20aluminum&hl=en&emb=0

What does that video show? Thermite melts aluminum? No way! You know what the most interesting thing about that video is? That you can see how unlikely it was that thermite brought down the WTC. Look at how it really is only capable of melting a small hole in the hood of the car because, despite being very hot, it flows quickly off the sides of the hood. Now tell me how thermite melted through vertical steel girders that are substantially thicker and buried in walls around the exterior of the building?

no, that was melted aluminum that they mixed with carpet and stuff like that. it doesnt look anything like what came out of the building.

You linked to a video about a car getting melted by thermite.

If you're talking about the "aluminum melting" videos on the left-hand side, these people have no credibility, aren't scientists, and, most importantly, they aren't heating the metal inside a raging inferno on top of a building. There's no indication of what temperature is achieved or even whether that's aluminum or not that they're melting. They're heating into a container, I don't see it flowing down the side of a building... which is what is shown in the video.

Seriously, these videos are insultingly stupid.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

 

[BeauJangles]

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

Treat it like a crime scene? It was a disaster area and the NIST has already stated why they didn't examine the steel on the ground. In case you forget:

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

As for your quote, it's from an "unnamed" source that a random guy has managed to dig up. We cannot verify anything that is said, except that we can look at his other sources:

I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing ? although that was part of it ? by a sovereign government?It will become public at some point when it?s turned over to the archives, but that?s 20 or 30 years from now.?



--Senator Graham (FL) as quoted in Senator: At Least One Foreign Country Assisted the 9/11 Terrorists The full quote is: "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States. " ... "It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today. " This does nothing to prove Israel or anyone else was behind the attacks.



"While I agree with you, if I say anything about US geopolitical interests with Israel, I might as well clean off my desk."



-- Unnamed reporter as quoted in American Media Censorship and Israel Vague



"Investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying ... is considered career suicide."



-- Carl Cameron, as quoted in The Spies Who Came In From The Art Sale "The Spies Who Came In From The Art Sale is basically a chain-letter

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11. Vague, "US official" could be anyone or nobody.

So basically, this guy made up one quote and cited a bunch of "anonymous" officials and you're going to believe him? The quote SHOULD be overlooked because it's completely baseless and there is no factual evidence to back it up. We don't even have a name for the source and good old Ed Hass, noble soul that he might be, could have just made the whole fucking up because he doesn't like Israel.

What did I say earlier?

Pretty much you twist the facts to fit your own twisted view of reality. Rather than examining the facts presented by truther websites, you just blindly accept them even though most of them are flat-out wrong.

 

[event8horizon]

beau-
sorry i meant to link this of aluminum they were trying to make look like what was coming out of the tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

 

[Fox5]

Seriously, here's what probably happened:
Really hot fire in building
Beams heat up
As beams heat up, they expand
Building structure is deformed ever so slightly, shifting load
As beams expand, they also weaken on top of having to deal with greater torque
Beams eventually exceed a threshold and buckle suddenly, causing the building to suddenly collapse

If you've ever seen a bridge or any other metal structure fail under a compression load, it's not too hard to understand how the WTC could have fallen like it did.

 

[event8horizon]

beau-
u can post on the official 911 blog about the israeli stuff. youll find plenty of interesting links. chain letter.....thats a good one???

 

[DrPizza]

event8, I watched that idiotic Gage video. Do people really not think critically when listening to someone like that? After 10 minutes or so, I heard enough. Either the guy is an idiot, or he's deliberately distorting reality. The last part of the video I watched was when he apparently tried to convince the audience that the building was built to withstand the weight of everything above it, therefore, it shouldn't have continued to collapse. Two types of loads: it was built (as is any building) to withstand a static load, not a dynamic load. HUGE difference. Is this an error on his part? Or is it a deliberate attempt to distort the truth? So, I did a little hunting on the guy. It appears that he edited the audio of a video of a controlled building demolition. Hmmm. So a little more searching, and well, I'm not simply going to type everything:
I watched your stupid videos, you read all of this.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
sorry i meant to link this of aluminum they were trying to make look like what was coming out of the tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

Michael Ware? If he's an "assistant Professor" with the NIST (Is that a real title? If it wasn't, shouldn't the a in assistant be capitalized?) why does his name not show up on the website and why can I find no mention of him outside this video?

There's no evidence they actually heated the aluminum to the proper temperature and there's no evidence that what they threw into the concoction was really what was up in WTC 1 or 2. My point is that the experiment is an utter failure because they're trying to simulate something that cannot possibly be simulated again.

It is the same as Maddux's answer to Loose Change, called Unfastened Coins. Pay particular attention to the part where he says "to prove this theory I recreated the conditions that caused the Titantic to sink with scale models" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

Same idiocy, except your video purports to be a real experiment. I'll give you a hint, a real experiment would be done in a lab, with REAL experts using multiple cameras all with time-coded sequences so that we can see nothing is being manipulated or that we aren't being lied to.

edit: Plus if a guy from the NIST was trying to recreate a certain aspect of the crash, why would he leave the NIST (one of the most sophisticated labs in the world) to do so and join forces with an anonymous individual? Don't you think the NIST would be interested in his results?

 

[newmachineoverlord]

I think part of the reason for the persistence of the myths about 9/11 is the due to the obnoxiousness of the responses and prevalence of logical fallacies in the responses.

The 911 episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit was their worst episode by far. If it is so hard for them to produce a logical argument refuting the position of the conspiracy theorists without resorting to common logical fallacies, that effectively lends credence to the conspiracy theory.

That said, there are some websites that take a more productive stance at researching and counterpointing the various myths. I will also point out that for a steel building to collapse under its own weight, you don't have to get very hot. Depending on the grade of steel it loses support ability dramatically between 590-870 C. These temperatures are exceeded by a typical fire, and the WTC fire had a lot of fuel involved.
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1175

There are also some tests showing that burning mattresses resulted in high enough temperatures to partially melt the steel springs. Thus the claim that a normal fire couldn't melt steel is invalid.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Of course just because it was carried out by hijackers doesn't provide any evidence as to who orchestrated the conspiracy (and all theories regarding 9/11 are conspiracy theories, as the alternative theory would be that a single person hijacked all four planes and crashed them all personally.) Investigations of possible involvement by domestic politicians should be encouraged and assisted, not ridiculed. Innocent until proven guilty applies just as much to Osama Bin Laden as it does to George W. Bush, and I haven't seen any solid evidence implicating or exonerating either one.

 

[DrPizza]

event8, I have a much much better idea... save us all a lot of time. Before you present any more "facts" concerning explosives or any of the other conspiracy crap, why don't you do a simple google search for that fact, and include this in the search box: "site:debunking911 . com" (without the spaces) Only post items that haven't been thoroughly and soundly debunked. It'll save the rest of us a lot of time.

/thread.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
Strangely, Huntleigth USA, an airport passenger screening company owned by Israel?s International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), led by ?former Israeli military commanders and members of its intelligence and security agencies,? received congressional immunity for failed airport security at Boston and Newark airports where three of the four doomed planes originated on September 11.

Actually, ICTS is a Dutch company, not an Israeli company. Addionally Huntleigh USA only oversaw checkpoint security for United at Boston Logan airport. American Airlines security at Logan was provided by Globe Aviation Services (British). Security at Dulles and Newark was provided by Argenbright (Swedish). So, as you can see, it was not unusual in the least for foreign owned companies to provide security for US airports.

So, once again, the 9/11 conspiracy goobers can't get the actual facts of the matter straight. They embellish, and flat out lie to attempt to raise a spectre where none really exists. Besides that, stop trotting out articles from the kool-aid swilling nutjob websites. Tom Flocco has no credibility. He's a wing-nut and a proven liar.

how about this-
http://www.thebarrychamishwebs...etters/atzmon70506.htm

Menachem Atzmon resigned as president of Friedman's IDF following his
1996 conviction of Friedman's IDF following his conviction for
Israeli election campaign finance fraud.But his later U.S. activities
would prove to be much more disturbing.Atzmon and his business partner Ezra Harel are the majority owners(57%)of ICTS - International
Consultants on Targeted Security, run by 'former(Israeli)military
commanding officers and veterans of government intelligence and
security agencies' according to its website.In 1999, Atzmon's
Netherlands based firm took over management of security at Logan
Airport in Boston Massachusetts through ICTS' subsidiary Huntleigh
USA.This convicted Likud criminal's firm was in charge of security at
Logan Airport - inspecting the validity of passports and visas,
searching cargo, screening passengers-when two airliners were hijacked
from there on September 11,2001, and demolished the World Trade Center
Towers in New York.........

So what? Israelis aren't allowed to own companies? Nor did you acknowledge the fact that the article you posted was wrong in many factual areas. You chose to ignore it instead and blindly move on.

This implication that because an Israeli owns this company that 9/11 was some Zionist conspiracy is anti-semitism at its finest, not to mention an idiotic assumption.