For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

[ashling]

[Human101948]

1. Posted already...please delete...

and this bogus video does not duplicate the conditions present in the buildings that collapsed on 9/11.

[ashling]

7. I hadn't seen it before

but then there are plenty of things that are posted more than once


True, the video does not duplicate the conditions in the buildings. However, that was never claimed. The conspiracy argument that he is addressing is that jet fuel could not heat it to melting. As if that was a necessary factor. He does pretty conclusively make the point that even structural steel can be weakend to bending without it reaching the melting point.

The comments make that clear:

+workingwithiron I think that's the point. It DIDN'T supposedly melt. TRUTHERS say the melting point is important. Not engineers. As you say, the point is, the melting point is a non-issue. The issue is the temperature at which it's no longer structural. That's what he is saying.

[wildbilln864]

54. but...

steel was indeed melted on 911 at the WTCs and by some accounts even vaporized.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Untrue.

Well, 'vaporized' in the rubble pile, as a result of plasma fires, sure, because all we had to dump on it was water, and steam 'burns' away hot iron as a plasma fire, but no, no 'molten steel'.

There were metals in the WTC by the tens of thousands of tons that was much easier to melt.

It's easy to assume a glowing mass of molten metal is steel, but you really don't know until you sample it. Etched beams with missing metal is a totally different process.

[wildbilln864]

64. What caused the hight temperatures that caused molten metal for so very long?

Review Committee

Beyond Misinformation was vetted by a committee of respected architects, engineers, and researchers.

Sarah Chaplin is an architecture and urban development consultant in the United Kingdom and a published author of many books and articles on urbanism and cities.
Dr. Mohibullah Durrani is a professor of Engineering and Physics at Montgomery College in Maryland with decades of experience in the nuclear, automotive, and printing industries.
Richard Gage, AIA, is an architect of 27 years and the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. He has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings.
Dr. Robert Korol is a professor emeritus of Civil Engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada and a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering.
Dr. Graeme MacQueen is the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and a retired professor of Religious Studies and Peace Studies at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.
Robert McCoy has been a licensed architect in California since 1964. Most of his experience has been in steel-framed high-rise buildings, including the 34-story PG&E headquarters and the 44-story Standard Oil headquarters in San Francisco.
Dr. Oswald Rendon-Herrero, P.E., is a professor emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Mississippi State University and an associate editor of the ASCE’s Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.

http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#introduction

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Think of it like a combination of wood stove, underground oven (like a Lovo)that sort of thing.

Plenty of fuel survived the collapse, and was buried in the rubble. The building remains punched deep underground, even blocked the tram lines. All that crap, inside a concrete-lined kiln/oven, the flow of oxygen damped by the rubble makes for a very long, very hot fire.

200 acres of office furnishings. 200 million cubic feet of office space, compacted down, covered with a concrete lid, and set on fire.

Weeks and weeks. You also have the release of kinetic energy as heat from the collapse itself.

It couldn't help but burn for weeks. Dumping water on it, in some senses, added fuel. But there wasn't anything else we could do.

[wildbilln864]

67. yea woodstoves...

Last edited Sun Dec 20, 2015, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

melt and flow out nearby windows & doors all across the world all the time.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Oh, I see, you're just going to jump around and make shit up.

Because the metal coming out of the windows was doing so for weeks, right? Oh, no, I was talking about the rubble pile, and so were you. Metal coming out the windows was most likely aluminium, to answer your dishonest deflection.

Leave it to you to make heat retention about the rubble pile a deflection about what happened before the towers collapsed, as if that's a valid rebuttal.

[wildbilln864]

69. no.

but firefighters said molten metal flowed like lava underneath the piles in all three buildings. Heat retention eh? Do you even understand the concept of heat sinks? You're the one making shit up.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Concrete. Not a great heatsink.

At least you said it right, molten metal, not molten steel. I'll give you a half point for that.

[wildbilln864]

71. the steel not concrete...

was what I was reffering to. But you knew that so you lose a point.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. The WALLS of the pit and the 'lid' are concrete.

The rubble pile was metals, office furnishings, and a shedload of concrete. Hence the 'underground oven' effect. If you go back 3 posts, that was precisely my point. To address your question of how it stayed hot for weeks. It BURNED for weeks, and retained an enormous amount of heat, because concrete isn't a great thermal conductor. My wood stove at home is lined on three sides with 2 inches of concrete, for this reason.

So, if we're scoring for reading comprehension, the game is already over.

[wildbilln864]

73. all that sophistry has little to do

with the fact that molten steel was under all three towers.

". Physical Evidence

I-A. The 2002 FEMA Report

New York Times journalist James Glanz, writing near the end of 2001 about the collapse of WTC 7, reported that some engineers said that a “combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down,” but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” [13]

Glanz was referring to Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. [14] Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:

“[S]teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”

Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added:

“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.” [15]

In discussing “the deepest mystery,” the New York Times story said: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [16] That was an understatement, because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F). [17] In fact, Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F [648 or 704°C].” [18]"

and more here:http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Mixing terms again.

You say molten steel, your own quote says something very different.

“steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.”

Iron can BURN. You keep complaining about it melting. It didn't. It doesn't have to reach the melting point to burn away completely. You don't know much about iron and steel, apparently.

“The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” That was an understatement, because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F).

APPARENTLY. But we didn't find tens of thousands of tons of solidified, previously molten steel in the rubble. Even the 'meteorite' you truthers love so much has compressed concrete in it, and distinct conduit and rebar, un-melted, protruding from it. It didn't melt. It doesn't need to melt. I don't suppose you even own an anvil, do you? You should talk to a blacksmith sometime and ask what happens to iron at these temps, with varying levels of oxygen present.

At 1000c, you can burn iron. Burn it. Like paper. Metallurgy isn't your strong suit.

I love the 'at most' claims too, in the rubble pile (news reports indicated higher than 2000°F easily) without fire damping systems to prevent natural blast furnaces from forming. The same thing the baffles on the WTC core beams were designed to prevent. You can be sure temperatures spiked much higher in parts of the rubble pile.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Bogus my ass.

He went a couple hundred degrees high, but the ATSM35 steel is well documented, and we know how much strength is lost at the flame front temp of Jet-A, and how hot the fires that resulted from office furniture, paint, carpet, etc, got.

So, it's not deadly-precise, but it's fundamentally a sound argument.

[Human101948]

42. Which source are you depending on for this information?

Not your assumptions but a good explanation from credible experts/

And leave your ass out of it thank you.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. I have tables and charts at home.

I'm a welder in my spare time. The company that provides my acetylene tanks has a whole book on that sort of thing. Freebie at the counter.

There are also industry standards accessible to anyone, as well as the fire codes that changed as a direct result of what came of the understanding of WTC7's demise.

The fact that AE911 still boasts less than 3k members, and the inherent rejection of meaningless standards by engineers speaks volumes. This is a technical field full of people who dig and test and won't budge on stuff. Fire code changes were acceptable nationwide. It's a point to consider.

If you said 'we changed this requirement because long span steel beams do X under Y conditions', and it was BS, you'd have a hundred thousand structural engineers saying 'prove it'.

[Human101948]

47. NIST claimed that temperatures never reached the levels we are discussing...

Examination of photographs showed that 16 of the exterior panels recovered from WTC 1 were exposed
to fire prior to the building collapse. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of
WTC 2 were directly exposed to fire. NIST used two methods to estimate the maximum temperatures
that the steel members had reached:
• Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas
examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel
reached temperatures above 250 °C: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner
web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had
sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach
250 °C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only
3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors.
• Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to
a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using
metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples
had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017

They also tested burning office furniture and said it never got above 900 degrees F.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. AND YET burning office furniture has exceeded the failure point of steel.

Check the Windsor Tower fire in Spain. The building was a hybrid, part concrete column construction, part steel framed penthouse levels.

In less than three hours of fire, that started from a single ignition point, actively fought by firefighters, the steel framed components collapsed to the street like soft taffy.

Isolated aspects of some of the NIST tests don't tell the entire story. It's disingenuous to pretend that it was meant to.

[Human101948]

49. We're talking about WTC1 and WTC2. Read the report...

I gave you the link. Show me where your claim of such high temperatures is supported.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. I used WTC7/Windsor as an example of what steel can and has done in a fire.

There are more examples, if you like.

1:10 into this video was the most obvious. You can see the outer walls being pulled in, and then literally snapping at the moment of failure. If you don't think the report shows support for high temps, you haven't read it.

Those walls are being PULLED in. It's a tube within a tube. Snap the outer tube, and it's coming down.

[nationalize the fed]

53. Windsor Tower steel DID NOT collapse into the street like soft taffy

Did you hear that somewhere or just make it up?


Torre Windsor burning Place: Madrid, Spain Photographer: © Manuel González Olaechea y Franco Photo date : February 13th, 2005, at 12.06 hours

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)

Isolated aspects of some of the NIST tests don't tell the entire story. It's disingenuous to pretend that it was meant to.

Disingenuous is stating something from one's imagination (or perhaps a faulty memory) as a fact

Enough to make one wonder how many other "facts" you have stated that are simply incorrect.

[cpwm17]

55. Your link helps make AtheistCrusader's point.

It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing.

You can see from the picture that the unprotected steel part of the building collapsed. The reinforced concrete parts of the building remained. The WTC buildings were not reinforced concrete, which have far superior fire performance.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. That's why I find the Windsor Tower such a useful example.

It didn't get hit with a mass of burning crap from the next door building collapsing. It started from a single ignition source. So that's actually a point in favor for the strength and fire resistance of WTC7. It lasted longer, against a much larger disaster.

For the construction that was going on, Windsor Tower had it's sprinklers turned off. That parallels WTC7, because when the main towers came down, they punched through the lower Manhattan water mains, severely limiting how much the building itself could fight the fire un-manned by firefighters.

And last but not least, in one fire, Windsor Tower shows how steel, and concrete perform in a fire, side by side. It's a brilliant comparison, and really it shows how well WTC7 withstood all that it did, before coming down.

Thanks for jumping in, maybe hearing it from two different people explaining it will help the poster upthread understand better.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. You have no idea how the windsor tower is designed. You're looking at the remaining concrete pillars

From the top technical floor up, the steel framing is gone. All that remains is the concrete core. BELOW the top technical floor, the building is concrete pillar construction.

The outer walls were straight all the way to the top, it's not supposed to taper in like that. The core was concrete, because it had small rooms, elevators, whatnot, but the outer edges of the building above the top technical floor were steel framed. It allows for wide open expanses, nice views, open penthouse rooms, conference rooms, etc.

In the photo you just posted, there's a twisted mass of some of that metal that landed on the top technical floor, and the rest is in the street. The steel framed portions of the building are gone. Gone.
Here's another image, the concrete remains, the steel is GONE.


One minute thirty seconds into this video you can see the steel floors and walls coming down like someone made the building out of soft taffy.

Disingenuous is stating something from one's imagination (or perhaps a faulty memory) as a fact

Enough to make one wonder how many other "facts" you have stated that are simply incorrect.

Zero.

[Warpy]

2. Oh, too funny!

I really, really love this one, especially the last line. My mother the metallurgist would likely have something really tart to say about that particular conspiracy theory had she not been so ill during and after 9/11.

I also admire the hell out of good blacksmiths.

[markpkessinger]

8. The only part of the prevailing conspiracy theories I've ever thought merited looking into . . .

. . . was the collapse of WTC Building 7 -- not because it requires some exotic, conspiratorial explanation, but because it conveniently served the needs of WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's needs with respect to his insurance claim. Plain old, pedestrian insurance fraud. If building 7 had remained standing, Silverstein couldn't have declared a total loss on the site.

[Warpy]

9. Yes, the official report identified the vertical column that failed and initiated the collapse

but neglected to mention where, how and why it failed. That's always bothered me, too. Building 7 didn't share the construction of the two big towers and should have remained standing, even with severe damage from falling debris and several large and hot fires burning inside.

[cpwm17]

11. It was set on fire by the falling, burning debris.

There were large, unfought fires that burned for hours. Steel structures are vulnerable to fires.

[Warpy]

13. Yes, but the oficial report had the steel fail

away from the most intense fires. I have no idea why it failed, either, and I'm not about to add to the idiocy around it.

The report was just incomplete, IMO.

[rpannier]

16. A thought that may or may not be possible with the WTC

I spend a lot of time visiting Japan and I learned that buildings above a certain level are packed with explosives in the center of the building
If the building is on fire or appears like it will collapse after a disaster like an earthquake they implode the building to prevent the domino effect of it falling North, South...
I wonder if the buildings in NYC and other cities with lots of tall buildings have done the same thing
It would make sense. It sucks to be in the building that's collapsing. But it would suck worse if that building fell over on three or four others and knocked them over and so on

[Thor_MN]

21. That sounds totally insane.

No building code would allow housing explosives in a building on the off chance they would want to implode the building.

It takes weeks of planning and weakening a structure to implode. Without structural weakening done, it would take much more explosives. Explosives that have a shelf life. Would you lease an office that had explosives packed in the walls?

[rpannier]

23. It's in Japan

Which, like most other countries, likely inspects those things often for safety
And actually I probably would lease from one in a place where they do safety checks regularly.

[Thor_MN]

26. I'm doubtful. Maybe something lost in translation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/science/tricky-ways-to-pull-down-a-skyscraper.html

This says that implosion of buildings is outlawed in both New York and Tokyo.

[cpwm17]

17. I'm pretty sure the experts that have much more experience in these matters

have some idea how it happened. The collective intelligence of the most qualified people generally get it right.

After WTC 7 was damaged and set on fire, it started to lean. The firefighters on site knew that it would likely fall, and they cleared the site. They were right: it fell.

The only choices are: the fire and/or the damage caused it to fall. The experts say it was the fire.

[Warpy]

18. Exactly, which is why I'm not adding to any silliness.

Yes, they knew it was going to go, yes they evacuated the building and surrounding area. No, the report didn't explain why that particular support failed where it did. It was incomplete in that regard, giving rise to all sorts of nutcases trying to fill in the blank.

My only supposition is that it was another expression of Murphy's Law, aided by tons of falling rubble and a few hot fires above.

[nationalize the fed]

30. WTC 7 started to lean?

I'm going to re read the official NIST WTC 7 report again, because I don't remember anything about that. But I could be wrong.

It appears that few of the posters on this thread (and many others) haven't ever read the official report.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

Here is a brief summary - only a very small area was subject to high temps, most of the building was below 4 or 500 C at all times. Nothing in this about leaning:

[cpwm17]

32. According to this fireman, speaking before WTC 7 collapsed:

[AtheistCrusader]

36. One wall was bulging/sagging, yes.

One of the corners was showing structural skew as well.

Not sure what your point about the self-cleaning oven is. My oven isn't a long-span steel framed structure that holds up tens of thousands of tons of additional structure.

[BetterThanNoSN]

37. Not a chance

The building simply cannot drop at free fall speed unless all of the steel columns are severed. Period. Saying one column gave and the building fell is ludicrous as there were 25 core columns. It didn't fall, it free fall collapsed. And Lucky Larry admitted on tape that the building was 'pulled', which he later tried to back pedal, re-enforcing the collapsing that occurred(and demo experts concur with this).

[cpwm17]

38. Complete bull.

Larry Silverstein didn't admit to anything of the sort. In the obvious context of his conversation, he said they needed to pull, meaning to pull the firemen out for their safety. Obviously he isn't going to say they deliberately took down the building. That's impossible and ridiculous.

Where did you get your degree? How are you qualified to know that a column couldn't take down the building?

It didn't fall at free fall speed. The videos clearly shows that the interior of WTC 7 fell first, then the unsupported shell collapsed quickly.

[BetterThanNoSN]

39. Seriously?

You must work for Lucky Larry. He said, we decided the best thing to do was pull it, they made that decision THEN WE WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE. If you watch this and still believe what you think you know, you are hopeless.

[cpwm17]

40. You conveniently left out the part of the "terrible loss of life."

Why did you do that?

You are also accusing the FDNY of being involved in the 9-11 conspiracy.



It really isn't cool to accuse innocent people of such terrible crimes.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Pull the firefighting effort from the building, or pull the building down?

We hear the same sentence from the same guy in the same recording, and come to wildly different conclusions based on the facts at hand.

Interesting.

[longship]

56. Gravity is a bitch, my friend.

Fact: all the water mains in the area were severed when the towers collapsed.

Fact: the fire department lost whole stations when the towers collapsed. They were busy rescuing folks and died doing it.

Fact: the entire area adjacent to WTC 7 was a tangled mess from the North tower, the closest. The debris field engulfed WTC 7, causing severe damage and starting many fires.

Fact: what few fire fighters left could not handle the fires. It is really difficult when all the fucking water mains are busted. So they pulled them out when the chiefs felt sure the building was unstable and was likely to collapse.

Fact: and it collapsed, like all such buildings do with similar damage. Just like WTC 1 and WTC 2.

And of course gravity is going to bring it down. When structural integrity is gone, that is what happens. Just like in WTC1 and WTC2.

No mysteries or conspiracies necessary.

It was one of those clusterfuck days brought on by crazy people flying big, fuel laden, commercial planes into tall buildings. Who claims to know what would happen while simultaneously claiming an inside job? Whoever does that are utter kooks.

All the science that resulted from those events back up what happened. And the only conspiracy was an Arabian one.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Indeed.

Well said.

The buildings performed admirably, all things considered. Saved a lot of lives that day. But they were not indestructible, and gravity is always there, waiting, pulling...

[PosterChild]

20. I've attended a lecture and discussion with the NIST investigator who...

...put together the model describing the extent and spread of the fires, including building 7. He told me that the failure mode was two fold. First, the building had an odd suport structure that relied on one steel pillar for key support. Second this pillar was repeatedly heated and cooled by the low grade waxing and waining fires in the building. The repeated expansion and contraction of the pillar caused it to "walk" off the concrete pad it was supported by, and when it did, and collapsed, the whole building lost structural integrity and went down.

He showed a news clip of an interview with the building in the background and it quite suddenly just collapses inward and disappears like a submarine submerging.

[Pharaoh]

28. really!

[PosterChild]

29. What's the point of your reply? eom

[nationalize the fed]

31. Have you seen this BBC clip?

Jane Standley from the BBC reports that WTC 7 had collapsed, even though you can see the building behind her. This supposedly came from Reuters but that's like saying your lettuce came from Kroger. The actual origin of this strange pre-cognition is still unknown, as far as I know.

Even more bizarre, when this first started circulating around the net, the BBC said they lost all of their 911 tapes. They "found" them a year or so later.

Jane was back 3 hours later. Wouldn't you know it, she was cut off again.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Fog of war.

I don't know how much of that morning you actually saw, but pretty easy for 'expected to collapse' to translate into 'collapsed' when there were buildings buried under rubble, buildings involved that the media didn't even know the names of, etc.

This was an unprecedented, hair on fire, running around in circles, information vacuum, and the media goes into ad-lib mode whenever that happens.

Fucking, CNN was speculating 'miniature black holes' when the MH-370 flight went missing.

[PosterChild]

41. No, I have not seen it....

.....I'm generally uninterested in the topic. I work for a University Affiiliated Research Center and we have monthly lectures on interesting science and technology topics that I regularly attend.

This particular lecture focused on the data collection and handling techniques that went into creating the chronological and spatial evolution of the fires in the buildings. This effort was conducted by the fire research division of the national Institute of standards and technology (NIST) engineering laboratory.

http://www.nist.gov/fire/
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/

It was quite an impressive effort. They collected a hugh amount of photography and video of the incident, arranged it chronology and examined it in detail for evidence of the extent of the fire. They correlated the exterior images with engineering and architectural diagrams of the buidings. They produced a minute by minute model showing where the fires had spread within the structure. This was then used by the other investigative teams to inform their anslysis.

Although this effort cannot literally be compared to the heroism of the first responders, I none the less consider this to have been a heroic effort. It was a critical challenge that had to be accomplished quickly and accurately since it was an important input into the other investigative efforts. They assembled a team, including students from around the country who were brought in for the effort, put together a plan, established rigorous analytical standards, collected the evidence, performed the analytics, and produced the needed information under very demanding conditions and deadlines.

I'm very glad that our country has scientists and engineers who have the intelligence, capability, motivation and integrity to meet these challenges and can be counted on when called to duty.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Not just investigative efforts, but

future life-safety supporting structural engineering. New fire codes. New disaster allowances in the design.

The new WTC is only rated to withstand that sort of fire we saw on 9/11 for three hours. That's more than a 3x increase in safety margin. But the real golden nugget, is the work that went into preserving access to floors in that kind of disaster, so 3 hours becomes an adequate window to evacuate everyone from the building, and possibly mount additional fire-fighting efforts.

Worst case scenario, next time, more people will live. That's the bottom line.

[PosterChild]

50. +100 !!

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Technically, three key pillar/yokes.

It was perched over the con-Edison substation like a spider, sort of.

But yes. And the telling clue about the video of the collapse, is the disappearance of the roofline equipment and penthouse a few seconds before the outer walls start downward motion. A critical clue to when the 'collapse' really started, that shreds the 'free fall' bullshit as well.

[PosterChild]

52. What you describe is exactly...

....the striking aspect of this video. This is what I was referring to when I compared the colapse to a submarine submerging. If you don't know to look for it, you miss it entirely , but once you have seen it, it really stands out in a creepy way.

The lecturer played the video several times, first without comment and then again pointing out the sequence with the penthouse and roofline equipment disappearing first.

[Hal Bent]

3. "If it was a conspiracy, I do not care."

What a patriot!

[Xithras]

4. "Your argument is invalid. Find a job."

I love this guy.

[BlueJazz]

5. Maybe the fuel was High-Test (High-test fuel will burn at 2230 degrees) I think or...

maybe I'm full of shit.

[Hotler]

12. Jet fuel is like kerosene, it is not like....

Sunoco 100 octane unleaded race fuel.

[JDPriestly]

25. Hotler, your post I understand and believe to be true.

[sulphurdunn]

6. The experiment proves

that a bar of 1/2" structural steel can be bent easily from a vertical to a horizontal angle with little effort when heated to 1800 degrees. That is all. It proves nothing else and invalidates nothing. To his credit, this bellicose chest thumper never concludes that his experiment explains anything about the collapse of the Twin Towers. He leaves that to those who wish to infer it.

[canoeist52]

10. Obviously not a man of science.

A true man of science keeps an open mind and never deals in absolutes.

And if he doesn't care, why is he making this video?

[Warpy]

15. He's a blacksmith. He knows how metal behaves with heat.

He's not looking beyond that knowledge. He's using his own knowledge to try to shut up the "Loose Change" fans on one part of their stupid conspiracy theory.

He's SOL, of course, if they ever listened to real experts in their fields, they'd have laughed at that video, too.

[rgbecker]

14. Great fun, but he should have shown a thermometer to convince me of the temp.

Those new infrared ones that simply shine a beam on an object to get a surface temp reading.

[Thor_MN]

22. "shine a beam on an object "? Why would you believe an infrared thermometer

when you don't understand how they work?

Infrared thermometers read the infrared radiation coming of a surface. Some might have a laser pointer to show what they are aimed at, but the laser pointer plays no role in reading the temperature.

If one knows what they are doing, as this guy appears to, one does not need a thermometer to tell the approximate temperature of heated steel. The steel itself will tell you.

http://www.hearth.com/talk/wiki/know-temperature-when-metal-glows-red/

[liberalnarb]

19. Fuck this guy.

No, I dont believe 9/11 was "A conspiracy" as this individual would put it. But I am annoyed that someone on DU would post a video with an offensive hick that uses words like "retarded".

[mwrguy]

51. +1

[JDPriestly]

24. I never heard that theory about 9/11 and don't understand a word of it, but that video made me

laugh. Thanks for posting.

[MIKE UU]

27. This view of the WTC explains a lot. N/T

[Human101948]

43. You're right, there were a lot windows...

I used to go to Windows on the World for special occasions.

[ucrdem]

61. That's why WTC structural steel was coated with asbestos.

A LOT of asbestos.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Vermiculite from Libby, MT, a superfund site that is killing people to this day.

That shit is bad. Very bad. (And was discontinued about 60% of the way up, in the towers, because it's properties became (publicly) known.)

[wildbilln864]

65. propaganda can't melt steel beams!

http://911blogger.com/news/2015-12-20/propaganda-can-t-melt-steel-beams