Overheal wrote: » The implication there is that there is a heat source 2,500 F just a couple feet from the camera (and those papers) and they don't combust, there is no heat distortion effects, nothing? Because jet fuel burns hotter than pretty much anything you will have seen in any of those blazes. By a lot. The steel columns, beams, ties, and spans underneath are rated for vertically static loading. You're introducing a massive crushing momentum force. Take for instance a train car: it takes *lots* of force to get its wheels spinning, but once they are you can push it along by hand. That's because in that case static friction >>> dynamic friction. Same general principles apply to a static load vs. a dynamic load: steel can handle static loads many times greater than a bullet could apply to it, yet a bullet will still damage it, because there is still localized yielding. What we see in the towers, while non-intuitive, is physics: at each time step, the unmolested steel structure underneath is experiencing a dynamic crushing load of a greater and greater and faster mass than the moment in time/a few inches of structure before it. Whereas at the first point of failure you had n number of floors falling upon structure of m floors at velocity v, you successively have n+1 floors acting on m-1 floors at a speed of v+g*t. And yes, this still applies even though the structure was rated to withstand lateral forces from an earthquake (probably around magnitude 4.0, but I'm not readily able to pull of that spec or what the requirement was in the 1970s NYC). The collapse itself triggered a pair of quakes magnitude 2.1 and 2.3, the plane strikes were mag 0.9 and 0.7. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/seismology-911 the same source link suggests 'modern' NYC buildings have a typical safety up to 4.0 or 4.5 (the new Freedom Tower is rated up to 8.0 and expected to take up to a 9.0 before a directly catastrophic failure). This suggests the WTC which wasn't 'modern' had a less than 4.0 safety rating but I don't know. Again though that's lateral: a table leg is strong in compression but not if you kick the side of it. Inversely, a structure designed to support sudden lateral shifting is not necessarily designed to support 1/4th or more of its structure collapsing down on it at speed. And we haven't even discussed other potential failure points like assembly joints, nuts, bolts, trusses, spandrels, and the like. https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105 The towers were not engineered with computers. I'm not going to bother trying to defend the NIST to a truther (because that's futile), but I will say in University (and I went to one of the best in the country) I had some very open minded liberal professors who were doctorates of heat transfer and metallurgy and ****, and they are not truthers, and they have taught and lectured and demonstrated how the science works, and how it applied to the WTC. There was even a fun in class activity at one point where we used the principle of heat transfer ourselves, to set up the problem, factor in the asbestos and the heat source and the steel and determine how long it would take to heat to its failure point (in the ballpark of 3 hours) which coincidentally enough, is about the same time-frame that the towers fell. Your unwillingness to accept information is your prerogative but stop pretending you're open-minded and looking for 'truth' when you reject it out of hand. I didn't even quote or cite the NIST. I cited a dissertation from the University of Texas at Austin. If you're unable or unwilling to read or digest the information I can't help you.
Overheal wrote: » It would be trivially easy to produce a sample of this melted steel, if it exists. Lots and lots of people found and recovered parts of the Space Shuttle Columbia when it disintegrated, but not one New Yorker found a piece of once-gloopy molten tower steel to take home? There should be *lots* of that, if the conspiracy is true, and with as many people that were in and around that site (and how far debris was flung from the site - blocks away) I am flummoxed to how there is none on eBay right now. Should be literally tons of misshapen samples. Where are they?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » This does not mean what you think it means, do some research before trying to introduce new words into your vocabulary
Cheerful Spring wrote: » It should not be happening at all. Instead what you find is steel melted in a debris pile. How does steel just evaporate like that? What are the conditions that caused it truly? It more curious when NIST comes along and claims no steel melted. They claim on a video nobody reported finding molten steel in the debris and there no video or photos of it. This clearly wrong when you have videos of firefighters, clean up workers saying they were finding steel melted in the rubble.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Well if you have not noticed the steel is sitting on a pile of debris. You can clearly see the edges of the steel sticking out. The steel was painted with red primer paint. Most of the hot spots you can see their steel there on top. Look at Dohnjoe photos again. Going by the photos the fires are in the yellow zone ( unless your colour blind?)
You providing nothing worthwhile. History is on the side of the truthers. It not like fires have never touched steel in buildings before. How come these buildings never fully collapsed? You find plenty of examples online of steel framed buildings burning for a lot longer than WTC7 and none of them falls down.
How can a building just collapse at freefall speeds? Even if you are right steel sections collapsed in one part of the building at the top, the rest of the building is still supported by steel connections undamaged by a fire underneath. There should be a decline in speed when steel supports are buckling and breaking. What you saw on 9/11 defies physics.
NIST thermal expansion is based on lies and manipulation. Refusal to believe it does not matter, as its the truth. NIST removed construction fittings on the girder that failed at column 79. This is established factual information in 2019. We can't trust NIST to tell us the truth when they are doing this to suit their model. Their computer model of the collapse they released is based on lies.
The Nal wrote: » Wheres your evidence that people have forgotten about it?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » People have forgotten about the Anthrax attacks that occurred 6 days after 9/11..
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Bin Laden denied he was involved. Since he the supposed mastermind behind the attacks why would he deny it? He should be celebrating it not denying it. And nobody has ever claimed it was not Bin Laden who issued the denial statement 6 days after 9/11. Jihadists denying involvement is suspicious yes or no?
Dohnjoe wrote: » Truthers are the same across all of these "inside jobs". Quack logic, endless deflection, no critical thinking and an allergy to actually giving details of the conspiracy Same fantasy, different terrorist event
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Unrelated events and have nothing to do with 9/11.
Dohnjoe wrote: » The Sandy Hook truthers? the Boston marathon bombing truthers? the Charlie Hebdo truthers? Interesting how you pick one group and conveniently reject the rest as "crazy"
Cheerful Spring wrote: » History is on the side of the truthers.
Overheal wrote: » Steel did not need to liquefy in the buildings for the structure to fail. At the heats discussed, steel loses over 90% of its original strength. Couple that with thermal expansion and local buckling it should come as a surprise to none that the buildings didn't exactly hold up.
Overheal wrote: » Would seem very specious that paper and steel were both burning right there in the same color spectrum as one another. Like the book of the same name, paper burns at 451 degrees F. Steel's color/temp chart belowhttps://pmpaspeakingofprecision.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/heat-treat-colors-copy.jpg its a big photo Now for fun and science, here's a paper studying the effect of heat on structural steel: https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/pdfs/LEE_PhD_Dissertation_opt1.pdf I suggest if you buy into the conspiracies, you'll have no hesitation pouring over the science Now you'll recall probably that jet fuel burns at, around 800 F up to 1500 F (~800 C). Look at the chart again. Now go into the results in the paper. You can flip if you're being a casual to around page 91. You should be able to see that at even 600 C, the steel loses more than half its strength. By the time it gets up to 800 C, it might as well be wood plank. Steel did not need to liquefy in the buildings for the structure to fail. At the heats discussed, steel loses over 90% of its original strength. Couple that with thermal expansion and local buckling it should come as a surprise to none that the buildings didn't exactly hold up.
King Mob wrote: » And again, the reason they did all this: Destroy some paper work. Best theory.
Dohnjoe wrote: » It's a well known photo manipulated by truthers It's burning paper This is like debating with a religious type who sees images of jesus in everything
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Second picture. Where did it come from? Lighting has changed in the second picture.
It's is molten you can see a piece of steel that folded in half? What you even talking saying it just paper?
Dohnjoe wrote: » For other readers It's a 911 worker cutting steel with a thermitic lance or acetylene torchhttp://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php%3Fmodule%3Dpagemaster%26PAGE_user_op%3Dview_printable%26PAGE_id%3D84%26lay_quiet%3D1 Watch the below, skip to 2 minutes in where the steel is being cut, and pause for effect to produce "river of molten steel"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GniL4-sf6X4 The below was presented by truthers as firemen discovering "molten steel" It's a (manipulated) photo of firemen around a light, the original version below Below was presented as "evidence" of molten metal The real image It was burning paper
Cheerful Spring wrote: » You don't need to wire the building, You can set off charges remotely by wireless/radio receiver connection. This a myth that you can only do it one way. The wires would be located behind walls whos going to see them? I already explained to you a company was doing renovations and upgrading elevators for years. Drilling and noise would be heard, it would not be suspicious to someone hearing it. It not like they were in a rush the had months to prepare maybe even year. .
Cheerful Spring wrote: » This is photographic evidence of a lava-like liquid near the steel columns. You deny the evidence.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » You don't need to wire the building, You can set off charges remotely by wireless/radio receiver connection. This a myth that you can only do it one way. The wires would be located behind walls whos going to see them? I already explained to you a company was doing renovations and upgrading elevators for years. Drilling and noise would be heard, it would not be suspicious to someone hearing it. It not like they were in a rush the had months to prepare maybe even year. You don't find explosives after they are used? You verify explosives by taking residue samples and checking the chemistry.
The Nal wrote: » How did they wire the buildings without anyone noticing - not seeing the wiring or hearing the demolition during wiring - and why were there no bits of wires and charges and so on found?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » When you believe an invisible man and stick man can exist. I had to use crayon drawings for you to notice;)
King Mob wrote: » Lol the crayon drawings are back. That'll make him look sane, adult and respectable.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)