For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

[LiberalArkie]

[zipplewrath]

1. Obviously part of the conspriacy

I'm sure it was all a trick.

[shebornik]

2. talk about moronic

A couple of floors in a high rise building with bending steel would not pancake a building of that size onto its own footprint,get over it yourself. Three buildings imploded that day in Manhattan and one wasn't even hit by an unmarked plane. While we are at it the supposedly most secure building in the country (the pentagon) couldn't come up with a single image of an attacking plane.

[zeemike]

10. Moronic indeed.

And that is not to mention that his forge has a blower that forces air into it to get the fuel to burn that hot. And the fires there were poring out black smoke, a sign of air starved fire.

The morons are the ones who will believe something that is anti science.

[KansDem]

11. And then there's this...

[aidbo]

13. ~15 & ~30 floors are not "A couple of floors" and "its own footprint" is BS

here's your 'foot-print'


Also implosion has a specific meaning.

[gregcrawford]

21. "Footprint" is a relative term...

... used by demolition experts to describe a contained debris field. Give the height of WTC 1 and 2, the debris field and the area of destruction was remarkably contained.

[cpwm17]

22. Apparently you've never watched a video of the towers collapsing.

They were a huge mess. Gravity pulls them straight down so naturally they fell in that direction.

First "truthers" claimed they fell into their own footprints; but when they were shown to be wrong, many switched, and claimed they were exploded with bombs, which made the huge mess.

When they were shown that the buildings fell in relative silence, they claim they were taken down by magical silent explosives.

Some just gave up and switch their claims to WTC 7. They couldn't let a good story go to waste. They're still stuck with their magical silent explosive story.

[hack89]

31. If the columns can't support all the weight above them

and all the PE turns to KE, there is only one wat it can fall and that is straight down. That is how gravity works.

[jmowreader]

3. Does anyone know the wind speed 85 floors up in New York City?

Google "forge blower."

[shebornik]

6. Remember the giant fireball

And the fireman's assessment when they reached the floor that had been hit. Something like we can knock this out, no problem.

[hack89]

32. There were multiple floors on fire

and the FDNY never penetrated into the actual fire floors. He was right on the edge of a massive fire.

[peace13]

4. Pretty sure this doesn't prove what he thinks it does.

However it does prove something. A+ for theatrics. For the record I am not weighing in on the jet fuel argument just commenting on the scientific nature of this particular experiment.

[zipplewrath]

23. I know what you mean.

There is no way to "prove what he wants to prove on an internet post. But, it does speak to the absurdity of their claims.

[gregcrawford]

5. So...

... how does Larry the Anvil Guy explain the videos taken from the Jersey side of the river that show descending sequential explosions on one floor after another that resulted in both towers collapsing in their footprints? They did not topple over and destroy half of lower Manhattan, and the lower floors were not on fire, so no steel noodles there. Can you say "controlled demolition?"

It is also interesting that the Empire State building did not collapse when it was hit by a B-25 bomber in 1945, resulting in a major conflagration on the upper floors. That must have been moronic, too.

[zipplewrath]

24. He does not.

The rest of the world tries, but I suspect you don't care.

FWIW there are explanations that are known to us who study this discipline. But I suspect that you believe we part of the conspiracy.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

41. So, you expected the buildings to collapse while watching them burn on that day? Even 7? nt

[zipplewrath]

42. Yes

Fire was known to be the most dangerous threat to those buildings. As to number 7, I was shocked when I learned how it was constructed. It never should have gotten a permit. But in lower Manhattan I suspect anything can be approved with enough money. But let us not miss the gentleman's point which is the was more than enough heat to weaken steel. Do you dispute that point?

[hack89]

33. Speaking of moronic

the Empire State Building has strong stone walls, the B-25 weighed a tenth of what a 767 weighs and was traveling at a fraction of the speed carrying a fraction of the fuel, and there was no major conflagration.

[gregcrawford]

35. "No major conflagration?"

That's not what news reports at the time said. Let's just drop it, shall we? I have no interest in changing your mind, and you sure as hell ain't gonna change mine.

Fact is, I began researching the WTC crashes in order to gather ammunition to refute conspiracy claims, but the more I read, the more I began to doubt what the authorities were telling us. One lie after another has been exposed, so don't waste your breath or my time.

[hack89]

36. The fire was put out in 40 minutes

Last edited Mon Nov 7, 2016, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Most of that time involved hauling the hoses to the 78th floor. There is no comparison between the two fires.

[2naSalit]

7. I guess that settles it then...

wow.

[chervilant]

8. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

I sure would like to have that anvil. Wouldn't mind having the forge, too.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. He'd tell you to get a job to buy one.

[chervilant]

15. Yeah, so it's a good thing

I already have my anvil and my forge, and a whole group of skilled smiths helping me learn this craft!

There's nothing like moving hot metal around!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. Kinda like sex. (Including the occasional venting of toxic gasses.)

[NoMoreRepugs]

9. steel girders vs a steel rod (in the furnace for how long?)....

with 70+ floors not exposed to that kind of heat and yet all the girders (170+) from the ground up 'broke' into pieces no more than 30-40 feet long..... wow, it's another 'mirakel in 'Merica'

[gregcrawford]

20. When Guiliani...

... gave the first of his many LOOK AT ME! speeches at Ground Zero, there was an upright steel support in the background that was sliced at an inward 45 degree angle. Standard procedure for a controlled demolition.

[cpwm17]

26. The beams were cut by the debris removal crew:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Something obvious like that would have been easily discovered otherwise.

The beams at the base of the towers are irrelevant since both towers collapsed from the aircraft impact locations, which make it obvious why they collapsed.

[wouldsman]

14. 1800 degrees?

Why would Larry the anvil guy heat the metal to 1800 degrees, which he admits is 300 degrees hotter than it could have possibly been on that fateful day.
In the interest of properly disproving the truthers he should have done the same thing with metal heated to only 1500 degrees.
But maybe he is the moron that doesn't understand that the difference between 1500 and 1800 degrees is the same as the difference between negative 150 and positive 150 degrees. Which we can all attest that those two temp readings are vastly different conditions.

[MillennialDem]

29. But he does in a sense prove that... if the steel beams did get to 1800 degrees they

likely would have collapsed INSTANTLY if you look what happened to the steel at that temperature and how weak it was.

At 1500 degrees, they would last awhile longer. Also, I doubt the beams got to 1500 because while the jet fuel did burn it wasn't the same as being 100% encased in a forge (especially for the beams on the other side of the building).

[cpwm17]

17. Anyone that has difficulty figuring out what collapsed the towers,

when they both collapsed from the aircraft impact locations, have a serious lack of common sense.

[sorefeet]

18. Fireproofing people. It is in the fire codes

All the beams in this public building were coated with fireproofing material. As required by the construction codes. It allows for buildings to burn long WITHOUT collapsing. It is a chemical that will not burn thus allowing the structure steel to stay cooler. Fire did not collapse these buildings. ESPECIALLY NO. 7. I have put on fireproofing in refineries. With good reason or they would never spend the money.

[LiberalArkie]

19. From a NYC retired Deputy Chief

Builders hailed the New York City building code of 1968 as a good performance code. However, some fire chiefs decried it as a law that substituted frills for real construction safety. The asbestos spray on coating of steel trusses used in the WTC towers was considered by Chief of the New York City Fire Department, at the time, John T. O’ Hagan to be inferior to concrete encasement of steel. Writing in his book, High Rise Fire and Life Safety. l976, he listed the following problems of spray-on fire protection of steel:

1. Failure to prepare the steel for spray-on coating adhesion. Rust and dirt allowed spray-on fire retarding coating to scale and fall away from steel during construction
2. Poor or uneven application of the spray-on fire retarding was discovered during post fire investigations
3. Variation of spray-on material during manufacture makes it ineffective
4. Lack of thoroughness in covering the steel during application is a problem
5. Failure to replace spray-on material dislodged by other trades people performing work around the steel during the construction of the building.


http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

[nationalize the fed]

25. A lot of fireproofing material

I believe there were estimates of how much it would have cost to rid the buildings of this asbestos but I don't have time to search right now. IIRC - more than the buildings were worth.

Here is a temperature breakdown from the NIST WTC 7 NCSTAR Final Report. Max temp in 7 per NIST was 900 Centigrade, 1650 F. But that was only a small area. Most temps were around 400-600 C. Temp of Self Cleaning Oven- 500 C.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

[zipplewrath]

43. for a specific amount of time.

That material won't protect steel forever. It is only designed for a specific number of hours. #7 reached that amount of time. It was going down which is what several people acknowledged that day.

[Turbineguy]

27. The only thing the Bush Administration

and the Neocons got right was the collapse of the economy.

Still, that was something of an accomplishment.

[Inkfreak]

28. Truthers are weird.

And the greatest thing about being a truther is the smug satisfaction you get when you tell everyone that you're in select group who "figured out" the truth.

[chervilant]

39. I guess I'm not a truther, then.

However, I do have a LOT of questions, still. As of right now, not a single person or agency has provided a reasonable and scientifically-defensible explanation of the collapse of WTC7.

BTW, as a fledgling blacksmith, I find this guy's demo misleading and rather condescending.

[jamzrockz]

30. You can always tell a fraud when they

trying to debunk an argument nobody is making. Nobody I have ever heard of thinks you cannot bend (I said bend not collapse steel) structures when heated. The argument is that there was evidence of molten steel in the building and temperatures from a jet fire doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.

All he did was thoroughly debunk an argument he created in his own mind. I know some people would say that it is just the truthers moving the goal post but please find me evidence of truthers making the argument that you cannot bend steel structures when heated and I will apologize. Speaking of bending, how come the steel structure did not bend like was demonstrated in the experiment? I mean, we should have expected the weaker part of the building to fall to the side but instead we got a collapse. Weird how that happens.

This is why you want to get a man of science not a run of the mill craft man to explain basic physics. Speaking of a man of science, you can check out physicsandreason experiments about 911. Where he actually uses twin towers like models to perform his experiments.

The video below shows alleged evidence of molten steel coming out of the video at 4:00 - 4:20. The website is a good resource for anyone trying to understand what happened that day using science experiments.

The video below talks about the financial dealings connected with the crime of 911. Watch and enjoy

Also even if you believe the official conspiracy theory on the 911 attack, please don't listen to disingenuous people like this.

[hack89]

34. There was molten metal - aluminum

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

the WTC was sheathed in the stuff and we know the debris pile burned well above the melting point for aluminum.

[jamzrockz]

37. Hence the reason why I qualified it with

"alleged". But that's not the OP is arguing. He just created his own argument nobody was making, destroyed it on camera and walked away claiming victory. It would be a totally different case if he was arguing that the orange metal we saw streaming down the building was aluminum not steel like so many other have done before him.

Also following his experiment if you can even call it that, shouldn't the building have bent to one side instead of collapsing into itself? At some point he should have realized that the model he is using doesn't work for building but he just continues with the video and makes a complete fool out of himself.

[hack89]

38. Massive weight and gravity leaves only one option when it comes to falling

and that is straight down. When the first column buckled, that slight movement instantaneously converted a massive amount of PE into a massive amount of KE. All the other columns would failed almost immediately-they were not designed to handle dynamic loads of that magnitude. Once the weight of the towers above the impact zone started moving there was only one way it was going to fall and that was straight down.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

40. Why is this post allowed to stand in V/M while Jamrockz was locked? Is it because this...

...video is antithetical to the one Jamrockz posted in response?