Bin Laden - Page 13 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#361 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 05:17 AM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

monkey's mom is offline  
#362 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 08:45 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

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.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#363 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 12:35 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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!

 


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#364 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 12:52 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

monkey's mom is offline  
#365 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 05:00 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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


fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#366 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 05:08 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

 


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#367 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 05:36 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

monkey's mom is offline  
#368 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 06:59 PM
 
hakeber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bogota, Colombia
Posts: 3,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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!

 


Rebekah - mom to Ben 03/05 and Emily 01/10, a peace educator, and a veg*n and wife to Jamie.
hakeber is offline  
#369 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 07:10 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.
 

 


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#370 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 08:21 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

monkey's mom is offline  
#371 of 412 Old 05-11-2011, 11:54 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

 

 

 


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#372 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 05:16 AM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

 

 

monkey's mom is offline  
#373 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 06:13 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)


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


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#374 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 06:29 AM
 
happysmileylady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

happysmileylady is offline  
#375 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 06:38 AM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

monkey's mom is offline  
#376 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 06:53 AM
 
happysmileylady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.)

happysmileylady is offline  
#377 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 07:01 AM
 
happysmileylady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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. 

happysmileylady is offline  
#378 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 07:29 AM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

 

 

 

monkey's mom is offline  
#379 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 07:42 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
  • 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

 


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#380 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 09:27 AM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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?
 

 

monkey's mom is offline  
#381 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 09:37 AM
 
happysmileylady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post




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?
 

 



Well, except it wasn't as if all of the evidence was up and destroyed immediately.  It WAS investigated, just not, apparently, to your liking.  Was all investigated as throughly and extensively as it could have been, possibly not.  Were there mistakes made in the investigation, totally possible.  Does it make sense to do a total re-check of the work, absolutely.  But, there are plenty of parts of the building that do still exist and evidenced by the fact that beams from Ground Zero just made a tour of my state (and no I can't provide the details of which building they were from or what parts of the buildings or any of that, I just saw a couple of blurbs on the news, I didn't drive out to see them.) So, no, it's not as if they said "that was weird, huh, well, lets just get this cleaned up and move on."  It's not like the report they did was just some novel or something they totally made up.  They DID do investigations, they DID look into how it happend, they DID test things and check things and calculate things etc etc.  Just because some conspiracy theorists, experts or not, don't like HOW they did it or don't believe it was done properly doesn't mean it wasn't done at all.  They didn't just rush in on 9/12 and scoop it all up into black bags and melt it all down. 

 

 

Yay, edit working again!

 

To take it a step further--

 

Why wouldn't look for explosives....um, because two large commercial jets were intentionally flown into two 100+ story buildings.  Why would anyone think, in the shock and confusion of those days and weeks, between trying to find people and trying to figure out who did it and would it happen again and so on, to look signs of an intentional demolition?

 

Why would building 7 get so much less attention?  No one died, no one got hurt and the loss was SO small compared to the rest of the tragedies of the day.  In terms of empty building collapses vs 2 100+ story buildings have airliners intentionally flown into them, causing collapse and the deaths of thousands of people...the 100+ story buildings are the bigger deal.

happysmileylady is offline  
#382 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 09:54 AM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hey, I'm not sure if I'm reading your posts wrong or if my questioning this is upseting you, but I really am just wondering about all this.

 

It "wasn't to my liking?" Black bags? Really? I mean, c'mon....

 

There are many other wild eyed conspiracy freaks (which I guess I'm now one of for asking some of these questions?) like the editor of Firefighter magazine who felt that shipping the steel off was highly unusual and a missed opportunity to gather information about why these buildings reacted so unusually. Asking for more information or pointing out massive missed opportunities is not the same as wearing a tin foil hat or whatever it is you seem to think I believe about that day or our government or what-have-you.

monkey's mom is offline  
#383 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 10:02 AM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by happysmileylady View Post

 

 

Yay, edit working again!

 

To take it a step further--

 

Why wouldn't look for explosives....um, because two large commercial jets were intentionally flown into two 100+ story buildings.  Why would anyone think, in the shock and confusion of those days and weeks, between trying to find people and trying to figure out who did it and would it happen again and so on, to look signs of an intentional demolition?

 

Why would building 7 get so much less attention?  No one died, no one got hurt and the loss was SO small compared to the rest of the tragedies of the day.  In terms of empty building collapses vs 2 100+ story buildings have airliners intentionally flown into them, causing collapse and the deaths of thousands of people...the 100+ story buildings are the bigger deal.


Ugh...nothing's working right for me. LOL. Post lost....trying again...

 

I would think looking for explosives would have been a natural result of so many eye-witnesses (including first responders) who said they felt/saw/heard explosions. Surely they thought those explosions were the result of more attacks and that seems very likely. Did the ATF get involved? I don't think they did. Not to mention the striking similarity that all three buildings exhibited to controlled demolition. I dunno...to me you turn that stone. Shouldn't this have been the ultimate "all hands on deck...what the hell happened here?"

 

Re. building 7, it's not even that it got so much less attention, it's that in the official inquiry that NIST did over years....it got NO attention. The FEMA report even said it was unusual and the hypotheses about fuel and structural damage had low probability of happening and that it should be examined. These are the kinds of buildings we still use and build and go into and yet......they might be this prone to catastrophic failure from fire and maybe generators? That's chilling. How do we not examine that? 


 

 

monkey's mom is offline  
#384 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 10:15 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

This is what bothers me. Yes, planes hit the towers. Yes, there were fires. But, nobody wants to investigate the possibility of some type of explosives that might have brought down the buildings. Why not? What is the reason to ignore the possibility of controlled demolition?  It looks like a demo, it sounded like a demo, but no, we can't even explore the possibility of a demo, because it makes people feel uncomfortable.  Can't even explore the possibility. Why not explore it, to try and disprove it?

When did scientists limit themselves?

 

If somebody wrecks the car and dies, don't we examine the person for drugs/alcohol? We don't automatically say, "the wreck killed him." We want to know what may have caused him to wreck. Well, for 9/11, the planes hit the towers, but some of us don't believe they fell for that reason. We want to look deeper.

There are 2(+)  schools of thought into the mystery. Some believe the scientists & engineers who support the official 9/11 story, and some of us believe the scientists & engineers who call for a new investigation. Both sides have experts, so it is a personal choice which side you believe. Very much like medicine, but that's another debate!

 

Is it impossible for an insect to speak in Latin? Yes.

Is it impossible for a fish to tie his shoes? Yes.

Is it impossible to blow up 3 buildings and blame it on terrorists? No.

 

Now, why are they not looking at explosives as one of the several possibilities? If somebody you loved died that day, wouldn't you want to investigate every single possibility? Even those that make you feel uncomfortable?  Would you ignore the possibility of any government involvement?  I don't put it past any (bad) person, if they happen to hold a gov't title or not. If a parent can commit crimes against his/her own child, then why can't bad people commit crimes against their own country?

 

I guess I want to get this point across-- 9/11 may NOT have been an inside job, but there is always the possibility that it was.

And I apologize, for I said I would use facts in this discussion. All I've done lately is express my opinions. I'll find some good facts, and post them later today.

hakeber likes this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#385 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 10:24 AM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

That's the thing...the presence of explosives does not = all fingers point to our gov't.

 

Did terrorists penetrate the building during that shut down and plant explosives? Were they able to use technology we weren't aware of to detonate the building? Did they employ the use of window washers to afix explosives to the outside of the building? I mean.....who knows. There are a million different possibilities, none of which directly mean that this was some evil plan hatched by our own governement.

monkey's mom is offline  
#386 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 10:28 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

Ha, good point! Why can't we investigate the possibility that the terrorists planted explosives?


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#387 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 11:27 AM
 
hakeber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bogota, Colombia
Posts: 3,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post




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?
 

 



Someone who doesn't care.  No matter who created the castastrophe that was 9/11 the media, the World bank, the National Treasury and the members of the US government saw a fabulous opportunity (maybe they created it, maybe they encouraged it, maybe they laid the groundwork for it to happen and just stood back and watched or maybe being professional opportunists they merely took advantage of a tragic situation turning those proverbial lemons into lemonade...who can say?) to incite the people against a long time enemy and begin an incredibly debilitating and financially (for them not the US people) beneficial war. 

 

If we had investigated further they would have had to abandon the whole Taliban-Al-Qaeda-WMD-Sadam-Iraq call to arms and actually start talking evidence and responsibility.

 

That doesn't keep people glued to the TV as well as incitations of hatred and revenge.  I mean who wants to watch a bunch of scientists examine building structures and talk about physics and engineering and all that junk?  It's so much easier to get people to care about such clever things as an "axis of evil" than it is to get them to care about the melting point of metals.  

 

I personally think the media can get people interested in ANYTHING (Olliver North trials were a big hit...I mean hello snooze fest!) so the question I ask myself is why wouldn't they want us to be interested in that?  What benefit do they gain from not investigating it?  Because that is the other possible answer.  Someone who doesn't want to know and/or doesn't want you to know.  I know when I royally screw things up, I do my level best to glaze over it, blame outside circumstances or deflect, deflect, deflect.  Change the subject ASAP. I can't imagine those with the majority share of power and control over public opinion are any different.

 

The TV stations, particularly the News Stations were a Gladiator stadium come to life.  We will seek revenge and we will get justice!!!!  It was like a page out of some great battle film. 

 

I have a hard time believing there wasn't a particular and self-serving reason as to why the news stations were all tuned into images of BinLaden and the towers, the towers and BinLaden.  Tiny children crying out for mommy and daddy and the towers and BinLaden.  Women and children being carried out on gurneys and the towers and BinLaden.  Brave Firefighters and EMS workers, and the towers and BinLaden. Every channel, every moment of every day for months and months. It looked very much like every war time propaganda campaign I have ever seen from Nazi Germany to Maoist China to the reducation campaigns of Vietnam.  It was frightening and served one clear purpose.  Not to seek justice, truth or clarity as we expect of the news, but to cloud judgement and move the masses toward supporting action against any enemy the State chose whatsoever.

 

Why bother having an investigation when the press have made the case so convincingly?


Rebekah - mom to Ben 03/05 and Emily 01/10, a peace educator, and a veg*n and wife to Jamie.
hakeber is offline  
#388 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 12:01 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

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.

 

 


Ok, first... A candle can be turned into a blowtorch (of sorts) if the right thing is added, namely a highly flammable spray of some kind.

 

Second, steel is made of iron and carbon. Iron oxidizes, when iron oxidizes it produces heat. That is how things like some hand warmers, or flammeless radiation heaters used in MRE's work.

 

You can watch videos of the building and see there are fires, it all depends on where the video was taken. The fires weren't visible from all sides of the building.

 

As for the last part, there are plenty of people out there who have reported on this beyond FEMA (including NIST http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) who have given far more evidence than "well I didn't see any of this, or that person claims they saw that" to show that, while unique in and of itself, the collapse is not much of an anomaly. It followed the laws of physics and chemistry to fall without any sort of government involvement.

 

 

 


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#389 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 12:13 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post


Ok, first... A candle can be turned into a blowtorch (of sorts) if the right thing is added, namely a highly flammable spray of some kind.

 

Second, steel is made of iron and carbon. Iron oxidizes, when iron oxidizes it produces heat. That is how things like some hand warmers, or flammeless radiation heaters used in MRE's work.

 

You can watch videos of the building and see there are fires, it all depends on where the video was taken. The fires weren't visible from all sides of the building.

 

As for the last part, there are plenty of people out there who have reported on this beyond FEMA (including NIST http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) who have given far more evidence than "well I didn't see any of this, or that person claims they saw that" to show that, while unique in and of itself, the collapse is not much of an anomaly. It followed the laws of physics and chemistry to fall without any sort of government involvement.

 

 

 


Excellent, it was my understanding that NIST did not undertake a report (initially, I guess), so I'm interested to look at that. Thank you!

 

Yes, a candle can become a torch but it needs more than variables like air. Which is my point about the buildings.

 

Oxidation produces heat that is neglible. Even in the cases of handwarmers and such a chemical reaction must take place. The metal doesn't just get exposed to air and start to super combust. Why would we build buildings out of that? Other chemicals (not normally present in these situations) could certainly be introduced to generate enough heat to compromise metal or even melt it. But metal itself reacting to a typical fire? Not as far as I know.

 

Anyway....off to read the report. Thanks again!

 

monkey's mom is offline  
#390 of 412 Old 05-12-2011, 12:31 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Oh. Well, it seems at the outset that this report is not based on any forensic evidence but on computer modelling. Hmmm....pushing on.

 

eta: "....the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before Congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin."  p.37

 

Right. "All" of it was was disposed of. That's insane. Oh, Bush science....it's so good. LOL

monkey's mom is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off