or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bin Laden - Page 19

post #361 of 412

I read the Popular Mechanics piece. It didn't really explain how a structure fire would melt steel. Or how all three collapses were completely straight down. If "one side starts going down" first it's going to topple. A 100% synchronized, straight line blow out is not how fully involved buildings collapse. It's just not. My husband is a fire fighter, my best friends are fire fighters--they know the temps at which things burn (to regulate how much heat their gear can withstand) and I can't imagine what would have been in that building (with the execption of the highly combustible stuff they say they found in the molten steel) that would have melted it from top to bottom all at once.

 

I'm not saying our government did it, or anything like that (I don't rule it out), but the claims about those buildings do not add up.

post #362 of 412

I read the Popular Mechanics article. Just the other night, I watched 9/11 Science and Conspiracy on the Science Channel. I like to research both sides to the 9/11 story--the official side, and the "conspiracy" side.

 

I am writing about this subject on the other Bin Laden thread, so you can peek over there if you like.

post #363 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

I read the Popular Mechanics piece. It didn't really explain how a structure fire would melt steel. Or how all three collapses were completely straight down. If "one side starts going down" first it's going to topple. A 100% synchronized, straight line blow out is not how fully involved buildings collapse. It's just not. My husband is a fire fighter, my best friends are fire fighters--they know the temps at which things burn (to regulate how much heat their gear can withstand) and I can't imagine what would have been in that building (with the execption of the highly combustible stuff they say they found in the molten steel) that would have melted it from top to bottom all at once.

 

I'm not saying our government did it, or anything like that (I don't rule it out), but the claims about those buildings do not add up.


A lot of that depends on variables. How long has the building been burning (in this case at least 2 hours), how hot the fire is, what the chain of events are, what the building is made of, etc. If something stresses the window frames in that are, then a synchronized break of all the windows is possible. There is no 100% accurate formula for how a building is going to go down. Even the slightest change in what would seem to be the most inane variable can change how things happen. It's science!

 

post #364 of 412

But in this case, it seems to defy science. The official reports state that rugs, curtains, papers, and office furniture created enough heat to melt metal. That's simply not possible. Beyond that, after several HOURS, those items are consumed and long gone.

post #365 of 412

I'd participate but I'd just be echoing monkey mama... Carry on! lol

post #366 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

But in this case, it seems to defy science. The official reports state that rugs, curtains, papers, and office furniture created enough heat to melt metal. That's simply not possible. Beyond that, after several HOURS, those items are consumed and long gone.


There is more in a building than that. Things are also a little more complicated than "this burns, this doesn't, this needs so much heat to melt and this one doesn't".

 

My personal opinion is that if they are hiding anything, they are hiding a crap job of building the structure. The fire suppression system seems to point in that direction, the pumps used to provide the needed water pressure had to be turned on manually. From what I can gather, they determined that a support column on the 13th floor buckled from the head and stressed the rest of the building, weakening it and causing the floors to start collapsing and the building fell starting on the east side and ending on the west.

 

post #367 of 412

But that's just it, if all three buildings did not support the kind of fireproofing and steel that would withstand heat testing, they never should have passed building code. Either the building material (in all three buildings) was extraordinarily sub par or there were items in the building that were outrageously outside the norm of flammable. Those buildings did not burn and collapse in any way close to what we absolutely know about office fires, high rise fires, or the way fires have behaved over the course of......ever?

 

And it is as simple as measuring the temperature of how items burn. At least for the firefighters I know who are involved in heat-resistant gear technology at the national level. They know how hot and for how long curtains burn. And rugs and office furniture. They have to. That's how they create protective gear. And in the past few years, variables like couches made out of composites, rather than wood, impact temps. They burn hotter, they off gas (resulting in attic explosions or fire balls drifting onto neighboring houses) and gear needs to be upgraded. How could these particular buildings exhibit behavior so far outside what we know about how things burn, for how long, and at what temperatures? How could metal melt at temperatures so profoundly below what we know steel to *normally* do?

 

How is it that these 3 buildings all reacted the exact same, profoundly erratic way? It just doesn't make sense. Or it's a miracle. LOL

post #368 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

But that's just it, if all three buildings did not support the kind of fireproofing and steel that would withstand heat testing, they never should have passed building code. Either the building material (in all three buildings) was extraordinarily sub par or there were items in the building that were outrageously outside the norm of flammable. Those buildings did not burn and collapse in any way close to what we absolutely know about office fires, high rise fires, or the way fires have behaved over the course of......ever?

 

And it is as simple as measuring the temperature of how items burn. At least for the firefighters I know who are involved in heat-resistant gear technology at the national level. They know how hot and for how long curtains burn. And rugs and office furniture. They have to. That's how they create protective gear. And in the past few years, variables like couches made out of composites, rather than wood, impact temps. They burn hotter, they off gas (resulting in attic explosions or fire balls drifting onto neighboring houses) and gear needs to be upgraded. How could these particular buildings exhibit behavior so far outside what we know about how things burn, for how long, and at what temperatures? How could metal melt at temperatures so profoundly below what we know steel to *normally* do?

 

How is it that these 3 buildings all reacted the exact same, profoundly erratic way? It just doesn't make sense. Or it's a miracle. LOL



Now wait a minute there, Monkey's Mom...I thought we all agreed that god was on OUR side!

 

post #369 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

But that's just it, if all three buildings did not support the kind of fireproofing and steel that would withstand heat testing, they never should have passed building code. Either the building material (in all three buildings) was extraordinarily sub par or there were items in the building that were outrageously outside the norm of flammable. Those buildings did not burn and collapse in any way close to what we absolutely know about office fires, high rise fires, or the way fires have behaved over the course of......ever?

 

And it is as simple as measuring the temperature of how items burn. At least for the firefighters I know who are involved in heat-resistant gear technology at the national level. They know how hot and for how long curtains burn. And rugs and office furniture. They have to. That's how they create protective gear. And in the past few years, variables like couches made out of composites, rather than wood, impact temps. They burn hotter, they off gas (resulting in attic explosions or fire balls drifting onto neighboring houses) and gear needs to be upgraded. How could these particular buildings exhibit behavior so far outside what we know about how things burn, for how long, and at what temperatures? How could metal melt at temperatures so profoundly below what we know steel to *normally* do?

 

How is it that these 3 buildings all reacted the exact same, profoundly erratic way? It just doesn't make sense. Or it's a miracle. LOL

 

It's not a miracle, it's that often times something as simple as air flow can raise or lower temperature. Yes fire fighters know how stuff burns. But an firefighter would admit that it takes more than just what to determine how long, or hot a fire burns.
 

 

post #370 of 412

A 1300 degree variation? That's a monumental stretch. Air is not going to bring a normal fire of an office building up 1000+ degrees to the point where steel would melt. There is only so much potential energy in each item. To overcome that difference in degrees, yes, it would take a miracle.

 

And molten pools that went on for weeks and weeks? That's simply not possible with the potential energy that the building and its contents would contain based on every thing we know about those items burn.

 

Beyond that where was the fire in videos? Lots of smoke indicates that there is NO air. It's oxygen deprived. And all three buildings showed (from the videos I've seen) lots and lots of smoke and very little flame.

 

I'm open to other evidence, but seriously, the suggestion that these buildings went from normal fire to lava pits based on extra air is outrageous.

post #371 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

A 1300 degree variation? That's a monumental stretch. Air is not going to bring a normal fire of an office building up 1000+ degrees to the point where steel would melt. There is only so much potential energy in each item. To overcome that difference in degrees, yes, it would take a miracle.

 

And molten pools that went on for weeks and weeks? That's simply not possible with the potential energy that the building and its contents would contain based on every thing we know about those items burn.

 

Beyond that where was the fire in videos? Lots of smoke indicates that there is NO air. It's oxygen deprived. And all three buildings showed (from the videos I've seen) lots and lots of smoke and very little flame.

 

I'm open to other evidence, but seriously, the suggestion that these buildings went from normal fire to lava pits based on extra air is outrageous.

 

You know steel is made out of iron right? Iron oxidizing is 1) exothermic, it produces heat and 2) sped up by heat. It doesn't need anything special to go from hot to red hot. Like I said, not everything in the building was office supplies and furniture. Is that what caused "molten steel"? I have no clue, I haven't seen any reports outside of conspiracy theories that even confirm there was molten anything.

 

There are plenty of witness accounts, photographs and videos that show fire. And oxygen deprived? Well, yeah, it was too busy reacting with the hot iron in the steel to make it even hotter. Although, having been camping I can promise you that an open flame with plenty of oxygen can produce impressive amounts of smoke. Even still, search for 9/11 fires and see what comes up.

 

It sounds to me that you are so against trusting the government that you would rather trust the first person who gives you an alternative to that.

 

 

 

post #372 of 412

No, it's really not that. And I'm not trying to be combative. greensad.gif

 

I'm just really confused by the suggestion that a candle, given the right conditions, could behave like a blow torch. And acting like that is a given.

 

Steel melts at a certain temerature. 1800 degrees, if I recall correctly. The average fire is going to maintain somewhere in the low to mid hundreds of degrees. Of course there can be flashes or hot spots that could reach into the low thousands.

 

It is not MY opinion that steel needs a certain temperature for prolonged periods to weaken or melt. It's just not. And according to the official reports the steel samples showed that the steel was about 500 degrees (in Towers 1 and/or 2, Tower 7 was not included). You can watch videos of the building and see there are no flames. You can also watch news casts of workers discussing the molten pit. ::shrug::

 

I just don't understand how a scientific anomoly--something that has never happened before or since--which leaves me (and many other engineers, firefighters, and professionals) wondering, "What the hell happened here??" means I somehow just hate the government and have latched onto some nonsense to justify that. It's pretty insulting, I gotta tell you.

 

 

post #373 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post

It sounds to me that you are so against trusting the government that you would rather trust the first person who gives you an alternative to that.

 

 

 



I'm not sure why trusting the government has any relevance to a murder investigation. There are many scientists and engineers who support this "alternative" explanation to what happened that day. Alternative theories should not be ruled as impossible, because they are completely within the realm of possibility.

 

It is not impossible to coordinate an attack, where planes crash into buildings that were previously wired. No, we do not like the thought of our own government having a hand in this, but it is still a possibility. You don't have to believe it happened that way, but nobody can say it was impossible. If this exact event happened in Egypt, we would have no problem acknowledging the inside job theory. Maybe this just happened too close to home, and it is too uncomfortable to believe.

 

Uncomfortable to believe does not = Impossible.

I've been researching this subject for nearly 3 years, and I learn something new with each search. Prompted by this thread, I found this article:

 

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

Former chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, Dr.Quintiere, PhD., one of the World's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, is calling for a new investigation as well.  It might change your mind about the official collapse-due-to-fire explanation. After all, since NIST did the 9/11 investigation, we are supposed to trust their word, right? But we should not believe the former NIST chief when he says "let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers."

 

This article is very persuasive. I encourage any skeptics to pick it apart! Read the article if you dare lightbulb.gif

post #374 of 412

Why does it matter what temp steel melts at?  The beams didn't melt.  They were damaged and their structural integrity was compromised due to the fire and forces of the crash.  The concrete was also damaged due to the fire and the forces of the crash.  Steel doesn't have to melt in order for it to be incapable of supporting the weight of the structure above it.  In fact, in some cases, it didn't have to be damaged at all.  Buildings require a multitude of supports in place in order to remain standing.  And, these buildings DID have 2 commercial jet liners crash into them.  A good deal of the supports for the remaining floors above the crash sites were taken out, just in the crash alone.  The remaining supports didn't need to be weakened or damaged much before they failed, they were already handling more weight then originally intended. 

 

Molten lava pits?  This is really the first I have heard of any molten pools of anything.

 

Something else to remember when talking about fires behaving as they never have before and steel behaving as never before and whatever else behaving in ways it never  has before....A large, modern commercial jet was intentionally flown into each of those 100+ story buildings.  Let me repeat that.  A large, modern commercial jet was intentionally flown into each of those 100+ story buildings.  Now, if you have documented cases of that every happening before, please share them.  Have planes ever crashed into buildings before, yes.  But, this particular type of plane crash and office fires had never happened before.  OF COURSE things are going to behave in ways they hadn't in the past.  OF COURSE these office fires are going to be different than other office fires.  OF COURSE the buildings and their support structures are going to react in unexpected ways.  These buildings were fairly unique, as their are only a few 100+ story buildings in existance.  These crashes are unique.  Of course the way the buildnigs react to these fires is going to be unique.  Had they behaved like a typical office fire or like a typical plane crash, THAT would have been the weird thing.

post #375 of 412

No plane hit Tower 7.

 

Even the FEMA report says this the first time a steel building was taken down by fire alone. And at the conclusion of their report they say they don't know how it happened, but that further studies should be done. Further studies were not done. The next official study was the NIST report that never even mentioned Tower 7.

 

We don't know why this happened. It never happened before. It's never happened again. It defies everything we know about science and physics. That's not odd to you? It is to me.

post #376 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

No plane hit Tower 7.

 

Even the FEMA report says this the first time a steel building was taken down by fire alone. And at the conclusion of their report they say they don't know how it happened, but that further studies should be done. Further studies were not done. The next official study was the NIST report that never even mentioned Tower 7.

 

We don't know why this happened. It never happened before. It's never happened again. It defies everything we know about science and physics. That's not odd to you? It is to me.



Building 7, building 7, building 7.  This seems to be a go-to for conspriacy theorists. 

 

Building 7, to me, isn't all that important.  I mean, all that happened is it came down.  There were no casualties.  There's no purpose for anyone to bring it down.  It didn't stick in anyone's mind, so it didn't succeed from a terrorism perspective.  So what I question is not how it came down, but why.  What purpose would any group, our own government, Al-Queada, Neo-Nazis, KKK, whoever, have in bringing it down?  The obvious conspiracy theory answer is to cover something up but...it was already on fire.  Just let the fire cover it up.  Feed the fire even, that would be so much easier to do, at least covertly, than to bring it all down.  Why go through all the effort of something so obviously visable as a demolition, taking the building down, just to cover up some documents, when it would be so much easier, more subtle, just as effective and less expensive to just continue to feed the fire and let it continue to burn it all down, while making it look like you are fighting it?  To me, logically speaking, theres more reason NOT to bring down building 7, than to do it. 

 

Also, a small detail of contention....it wasn't just fire alone.  The building was damaged by falling debris when a 100+ story building catastrophically collapsed right next door to it.  Once again, how many times had that happened before?  How many 100+ story buildings have ever collapsed like that?  How much of the debris from those collapses hit building 7 and damaged it?  Did anything in the building get doused in jet fuel from the planes as they crashed or as the buildings with the planes inside them and all that jet fuel in the towers came down? (I genuinely don't know that or if that could happen, but I do think that if it did, that also changes how the fires and support structures behave.)

post #377 of 412

actually, to be more clear (since edit isnt' working for me)

 

It's not that building 7 isn't important in figuring out what happened.  I also don't mean that it's not important that it came down.

 

I mean that in my mind, it's not so important in terms of pointing towards a conspriacy by the government.  I don't see any real reason for it to intentionally come down.  To me, motive matters.  The two largest buildings had already come down.  The shock and awe and fear and death and terrorization and everything that was the goal of 9/11, regardless of WHO you believe had goals to acheive, all of those things had already been accomplished.  The government didn't need building 7 to come down to accomplish whatever you believe they were trying to accomplish if you believe they had a hand in 9/11. 

post #378 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by happysmileylady View Post


Building 7, building 7, building 7.  This seems to be a go-to for conspriacy theorists. 

 

Building 7, to me, isn't all that important.  I mean, all that happened is it came down.  There were no casualties.  There's no purpose for anyone to bring it down.  It didn't stick in anyone's mind, so it didn't succeed from a terrorism perspective.  So what I question is not how it came down, but why.  What purpose would any group, our own government, Al-Queada, Neo-Nazis, KKK, whoever, have in bringing it down?  The obvious conspiracy theory answer is to cover something up but...it was already on fire.  Just let the fire cover it up.  Feed the fire even, that would be so much easier to do, at least covertly, than to bring it all down.  Why go through all the effort of something so obviously visable as a demolition, taking the building down, just to cover up some documents, when it would be so much easier, more subtle, just as effective and less expensive to just continue to feed the fire and let it continue to burn it all down, while making it look like you are fighting it?  To me, logically speaking, theres more reason NOT to bring down building 7, than to do it. 

 

Also, a small detail of contention....it wasn't just fire alone.  The building was damaged by falling debris when a 100+ story building catastrophically collapsed right next door to it.  Once again, how many times had that happened before?  How many 100+ story buildings have ever collapsed like that?  How much of the debris from those collapses hit building 7 and damaged it?  Did anything in the building get doused in jet fuel from the planes as they crashed or as the buildings with the planes inside them and all that jet fuel in the towers came down? (I genuinely don't know that or if that could happen, but I do think that if it did, that also changes how the fires and support structures behave.)



Ummm...yeah...Building 7. That's pretty much what we were discussing.

 

If it doesn't matter to you, great.

 

It does matter to me. My loved ones go into burning buildings. The science of how thing burn is what their lives depend upon.

 

I'm not saying squat about government conspiracy or making speculations about why "they" would or would not take out this building, I'm just saying this is very, very strange. To have a steel building collapse and the explanation is that is was because of fire is strange. To have no other official inquiry into that is also very, very strange. To say that it's "just what happens" is to ignore the facts and science.

 

 

 

post #379 of 412
  • Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.  Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology
  • David Griscom, PhD, Retired Research Physicist.  Served 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
  • Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, Former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.  Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association
  • Enver Masud, MS, PE, Former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy
  • James Quintiere, PhD, Former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
  • Dwain Deets, MS, Former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center
  • Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, Former Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S.  Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs.  Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S.  Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities

 

post #380 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by happysmileylady View Post

 

Something else to remember when talking about fires behaving as they never have before and steel behaving as never before and whatever else behaving in ways it never  has before....A large, modern commercial jet was intentionally flown into each of those 100+ story buildings.  Let me repeat that.  A large, modern commercial jet was intentionally flown into each of those 100+ story buildings.  Now, if you have documented cases of that every happening before, please share them.  Have planes ever crashed into buildings before, yes.  But, this particular type of plane crash and office fires had never happened before.  OF COURSE things are going to behave in ways they hadn't in the past.  OF COURSE these office fires are going to be different than other office fires.  OF COURSE the buildings and their support structures are going to react in unexpected ways.  These buildings were fairly unique, as their are only a few 100+ story buildings in existance.  These crashes are unique.  Of course the way the buildnigs react to these fires is going to be unique.  Had they behaved like a typical office fire or like a typical plane crash, THAT would have been the weird thing.


So let's say that this is all true. A very extraordinary thing happened (which is, of course, true), but that all these unique factors created a highly unique response (which, again, totally reasonable assertion). Didn't we send the steel off for recycling before we did the kind of forensic testing that would have helped us better understand all these unique factors and responses? Why would we do that?? And I don't mean that sarcastically or to point to a conspiracy or cover up....it's just truly....why on earth would we not look at this highly unique situation and try to get a better understanding of every single thing we possibly could? It is so crazy to me. This was HUGE for our country. HUGE. How could it be that our response is, "Wow. That was weird. Huh. Welp, let's just get this cleaned up and move on." Who DOES that?
 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News