Never Forget

[waverider]

It's Kid C back from the grave!

Let me turn the table... why do you choose to believe this outlandish fabrication that it was a govt conspiracy when the overwhelming evidence points to a solo al-quaeda operation?

Ponder this - if the idea is a "pretext to go to war, get the oil" - why not release some nerve agent at a mall or sporting event. Clean, simple, and massive casualties, with a low likelihood of being caught.

Next, the gov't investigators "link" the nerve agent to al quaeda, and further determine that it was supplied by Iraq. Score! Instant afghan and Iraq war, just like we have now, without the ridiculous, complex, and risky act of faking multiple hijackings, and loading the towers (undetected) with what would have to be tens of thousands of pounds of explosives.

The conspiracy loons point to the pancake-style of implosion on the towers as "proof." Don't you think they'd have placed the explosives sloppily and in such a way that the towers would tip over rather than implode? More realistic, greater casualties?

Give it a rest. It wasn't a conspiracy of the U.S. gov't or those evil jewish bankers. In case you didn't know, a lot of Jews died that day. They didn't have secret knowledge.

Regarding your comment: “The conspiracy loons point to the pancake-style of implosion on the towers as "proof." Don't you think they'd have placed the explosives”sloppily and in such a way that the towers would tip over rather than implode? More realistic, greater casualties?

That is my point exactly. The analysis reveals that the way the towers fell was not consistent with Newton’s laws of motion. So why didn’t the towers tip over in whole sections as they should have if it was just caused by failure of the steel structure due to fire in the regions at the point of impacts? I think you ought to review the video analysis again. Also the following info makes for some interesting reading (the relevant info is highlighted in red):

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm


One aspect that I think that we can both agree on is that the narrator who captured the video footage made several subjective statements that I think are incorrect. Such as his theory that the collapse of the towers was possibly nuclear in origin, and his belief that something other than an airliner must have impacted the Pentagon is inaccurate at best. I am more concerned with the data analysis made by the objective 3rd party. Herein is the basis of my contention that there seems to be more to what occurred than what the generally accepted official reports on the events indicate.

 

[dseagrav]

But, what about the fires that burned as result of the ignited jet fuel? In order to melt the steel structure an internal temperature of between 2600-3000 F degrees would have had to have been reached over a consistent period of several hours.

Except that steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength. Otherwise how would a hot start of only 800-1000 degrees destroy a jet engine?

The steel never melted. It simply weakened to the point where it can't hold up the weight of the towers (plus occupants, plus airplane remains, plus office equipment, etc) anymore.

 

[waverider]

In closing

I urge everyone reading this to view the entire footage and read through the documents presented and then draw your own objective conclusions.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12018.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

 

[Gorilla]

Except that steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength. Otherwise how would a hot start of only 800-1000 degrees destroy a jet engine?

The steel never melted. It simply weakened to the point where it can't hold up the weight of the towers (plus occupants, plus airplane remains, plus office equipment, etc) anymore.

Bingo. This is why jet engine turbine sections are made from very exotic and expensive nickel chromium alloys, and not plain steel. Steel loses its strength VERY quickly at elevated temperatures.

An EGT/Turbine temp of 800 C = 1472 f. If we must take steel to your quoted temp of >2600 f. for it to fail, well heck let's make the turbine blades from cheapo steel. Oh wait, the steel WILL fail at MUCH lower temps than that required to melt it, when it is under stress.

The pancaking effect is due to the way the towers were constructed. This has been demonstrated via simulation and verified by expert structural engineers over and over.

Please address my initial question. Why execute an elaborate, extremely difficult, and perilous conspiracy that counts on incredible timing and precision, when two guys in a van could leak 100 lb of VX gas at a football game, and generate the necessary excuse for the U.S. to go "grab the oil?"

By the way, don't put words in my mouth. I never said “I realize you despise the U.S. Gov't.”

 

[waverider]

Except that steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength. Otherwise how would a hot start of only 800-1000 degrees destroy a jet engine?

Agreed, but consider the following quote:

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not (fire) protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500-1,700�F (800-900�C) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100�F (600�C), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments [1].

One of the conclusions derived from the Cardington tests, was that fire protection for the beams (trusses) in a composite steel structure, was not necessary. See below for more on this.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

 

[waverider]

Bingo. This is why jet engine turbine sections are made from very exotic and expensive nickel chromium alloys, and not plain steel. Steel loses its strength VERY quickly at elevated temperatures.

An EGT/Turbine temp of 800 C = 1472 f. If we must take steel to your quoted temp of >2600 f. for it to fail, well heck let's make the turbine blades from cheapo steel. Oh wait, the steel WILL fail at MUCH lower temps than that required to melt it, when it is under stress.

The pancaking effect is due to the way the towers were constructed. This has been demonstrated via simulation and verified by expert structural engineers over and over.

Please address my initial question. Why execute an elaborate, extremely difficult, and perilous conspiracy that counts on incredible timing and precision, when two guys in a van could leak 100 lb of VX gas at a football game, and generate the necessary excuse for the U.S. to go "grab the oil?"

By the way, don't put words in my mouth. I never said “I realize you despise the U.S. Gov't.”

Gorilla, I never said that I had all the answers. In fact what I said was that “I don’t have all the answers.” I never suggested at what the motive behind these events was. It was you who brought up the “pretext to war” notion.

To quote you from an earlier post:

It's Kid C back from the grave!

Let me turn the table... why do you choose to believe this outlandish fabrication that it was a govt conspiracy when the overwhelming evidence points to a solo al-quaeda operation?

Ponder this - if the idea is a "pretext to go to war, get the oil" - why not release some nerve agent at a mall or sporting event. Clean, simple, and massive casualties, with a low likelihood of being caught.

Next, the gov't investigators "link" the nerve agent to al quaeda, and further determine that it was supplied by Iraq. Score! Instant afghan and Iraq war, just like we have now, without the ridiculous, complex, and risky act of faking multiple hijackings, and loading the towers (undetected) with what would have to be tens of thousands of pounds of explosives.

The conspiracy loons point to the pancake-style of implosion on the towers as "proof." Don't you think they'd have placed the explosives sloppily and in such a way that the towers would tip over rather than implode? More realistic, greater casualties?

Give it a rest. It wasn't a conspiracy of the U.S. gov't or those evil jewish bankers. In case you didn't know, a lot of Jews died that day. They didn't have secret knowledge.

I am merely raising questions about certain aspects of the generally accepted record of events that transpired that day, because based on the available data there are certain aspects in the official reports that don't seem to completely add up.

 

[waverider]

By the way, don't put words in my mouth. I never said “I realize you despise the U.S. Gov't.”

Ok, I recant. Your official post does not include that comment. So, my apologies.

You obviously must have immediately amended your post as soon you posted it. The reason I say this is because the notifying email that I received from FI that included your original comments contained the following:

Dear waverider,

Gorilla has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Never Forget - in the General forum of Flightinfo.com Hangar.

This thread is located at:
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=83342&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
It's Kid C back from the grave!

Let me turn the table... why do you choose to believe this outlandish fabrication that it was a govt conspiracy when the overwhelming evidence points to a solo al-quaeda operation?

Ponder this - if the idea is a "pretext to go to war, get the oil" - why not release some nerve agent at a mall or sporting event. Clean, simple, and massive casualties, with a low likelihood of being caught.

Next, the gov't investigators "link" the nerve agent to al quaeda, and further determine that it was supplied by Iraq. Score! Instant afghan and Iraq war, just like we have now, without the ridiculous, complex, and risky act of faking multiple hijackings, and loading the towers (undetected) with what would have to be tens of thousands of pounds of explosives.

The conspiracy loons point to the pancake-style of implosion on the towers as "proof." Don't you think they'd have placed the explosives sloppily and in such a way that the towers would tip over rather than implode? More realistic, greater casualties?

I realize you despise the U.S. Gov't
***************


There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
Flightinfo.com Hangar

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unsubscription information:

To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[waverider]

Regarding the fuel source of the fires

But, what about the fires that burned as result of the ignited jet fuel? In order to melt the steel structure an internal temperature of between 2600-3000 F degrees would have had to have been reached over a consistent period of several hours. Yet the buildings collapsed in just one hour. While it is possible that temperatures as high as these were reached, we can only speculate as to what the actual internal temperatures really were. However, there is circumstantial evidence that suggests that the temperatures in the impact regions were not as hot as the official reports assumed. Several eye-witness statements of survivors that escaped support this (the relevant info is highlighted in red):

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2

I must admit that those figures I posted earlier were a bit unrealistic in terms of critical temperatures for sustained structural integrity. I agree that steel would indeed fail at much lower temperatures. Actually as low as 1,100° F degrees. But consider the following:

Quote:

8) You should consider that it has been calculated that if the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction, then the jet fuel could have only raised the temperature of this floor to, at the very most, 536°F (280°C). You can find the calculation here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

 

[Gorilla]

8) You should consider that it has been calculated that if the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction, then the jet fuel could have only raised the temperature of this floor to, at the very most, 536°F (280°C). You can find the calculation here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

Waverider, I'll try to tone it down. Your example here does not impress me. Thermodynamic calculations are never exact. If I take 10 lb of coal and throw it into a closed system, ignite it, and watch the heat rise, I'll get some theoretically perfect value. The real world system of the towers is very different.

Without reading the novel on your link, let me toss these out. Maybe they're addressed, maybe not.

First: Why limit the calculation to the fuel? The trim, furnishings, walls, everything except the steel... all fireproof? When the fires started, of course they will spread and the combustibles within the buildings will burn, adding to the energy of the event.

Second: The draft. When you blow on a campfire's coals, the heat output rises dramatically. The winds alone at those elevations were probably high. Add to it the incredible draft created by the rising heat, and the core of the fire will probably rise to incandescence. When Tokyo was firebombed, dinky little incendiary explosives eventually transformed into a firestorm, with wind speeds, from outside to in, eventually knocking people off their feet. The draft effect is huge. A blacksmith can forge and weld iron and steel with a charcoal fire when draft is added.

Third: Initial damage to the girders from the kinetic energy of the crash sets the stage for the ultimate collapse.

Finally, to paraphrase occam's razor:

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

You still haven't postulated on the why. The U.S. Govt may be bumbling in some ways, but generally covert operations, when executed, are kept simple. The reason - the commanders of such operations know that simpler is better, and more likely to be successful. This fictional "operation" is outrageously complex - a rube goldberg chain of events - and would never be executed when a simpler method, like my VX scenario, would achieve the same results.

I have heard goofy theories that the towers supposed explosives were planted by private interests who were privy to the plans of al quaeda. Assuming your values are correct, and less than 10,000 lb of explosives were used, how in the world did even 8,000lb of blasting explosive get placed perfectly for what would have been far and away the largest and most complex controlled demolition in the history of man, without anyone noting or getting suspicious? Have you ever seen a pallet of 8,000lb? it's not a trivial amount.

The "explosions" noted by "expert" witnesses were nothing more than the steel girders themselved catastrophically failing. In a materials lab, we used to stress tiny 3/16" diameter steel samples in a hydraulic test rig and stress them to failure. That little 3/16" rod literally bangs like an M-80 when it lets go.

I am at a loss as to why people look for bigfoot and ET within acts of man. Somehow people get a little internal "rush" when they think there's some deep and spooky explanation to a simple, tragic event.

Bad guys hijacked airplanes, screamed allah akhbar, rammed the towers. The towers failed structurally. That's all.

 

[waverider]

This is going nowhere

Waverider, I'll try to tone it down. Your example here does not impress me. Thermodynamic calculations are never exact. If I take 10 lb of coal and throw it into a closed system, ignite it, and watch the heat rise, I'll get some theoretically perfect value. The real world system of the towers is very different.

Without reading the novel on your link, let me toss these out. Maybe they're addressed, maybe not.

First: Why limit the calculation to the fuel? The trim, furnishings, walls, everything except the steel... all fireproof? When the fires started, of course they will spread and the combustibles within the buildings will burn, adding to the energy of the event.

Second: The draft. When you blow on a campfire's coals, the heat output rises dramatically. The winds alone at those elevations were probably high. Add to it the incredible draft created by the rising heat, and the core of the fire will probably rise to incandescence. When Tokyo was firebombed, dinky little incendiary explosives eventually transformed into a firestorm, with wind speeds, from outside to in, eventually knocking people off their feet. The draft effect is huge. A blacksmith can forge and weld iron and steel with a charcoal fire when draft is added.

Third: Initial damage to the girders from the kinetic energy of the crash sets the stage for the ultimate collapse.

Finally, to paraphrase occam's razor:

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

You still haven't postulated on the why. The U.S. Govt may be bumbling in some ways, but generally covert operations, when executed, are kept simple. The reason - the commanders of such operations know that simpler is better, and more likely to be successful. This fictional "operation" is outrageously complex - a rube goldberg chain of events - and would never be executed when a simpler method, like my VX scenario, would achieve the same results.

I have heard goofy theories that the towers supposed explosives were planted by private interests who were privy to the plans of al quaeda. Assuming your values are correct, and less than 10,000 lb of explosives were used, how in the world did even 8,000lb of blasting explosive get placed perfectly for what would have been far and away the largest and most complex controlled demolition in the history of man, without anyone noting or getting suspicious? Have you ever seen a pallet of 8,000lb? it's not a trivial amount.

The "explosions" noted by "expert" witnesses were nothing more than the steel girders themselved catastrophically failing. In a materials lab, we used to stress tiny 3/16" diameter steel samples in a hydraulic test rig and stress them to failure. That little 3/16" rod literally bangs like an M-80 when it lets go.

I am at a loss as to why people look for bigfoot and ET within acts of man. Somehow people get a little internal "rush" when they think there's some deep and spooky explanation to a simple, tragic event.

Bad guys hijacked airplanes, screamed allah akhbar, rammed the towers. The towers failed structurally. That's all.

Gorilla,

You keep asking me to postulate as to the possible reasons why. Again, I never said that I had all the answers. Sure, we can all agree that it was a terrorist attack. That is obvious. However, based on the information that is readily available in the public domain it does not seem to be as straight forward as what the official reports indicate. Again, because there is insufficient evidence connecting any gov’t agencies with causing the events, I am not going to comment on that. Nor will I entertain you in a debate about hypothetical theories of: Well, if the gov’t was involved, then why not do it simpler ‘like this’ type scenarios, as would that not achieve the same results? I will make one comment, however. As far as the results you refer to being the same, well that depends on what you consider the objective is and what you consider to be results; so, maybe they’d be the same, maybe not. Again, I am not suggesting as to the motive(s) behind the events. What I am saying is -as I have stated previously- that there is information available which highlights certain questionable inconsistencies in the outcome of the official investigation, and which require further explanation.

It is obvious that you are not prepared to take the time to properly consider the information I have presented. The argument that you make for a simple explanation: simple cause, therefore simple effect, while convenient, is far too broad brush. It is the equivalent of the simple solution mindset that many people in the current administration had when they decided to invade Iraq in March ’03. Ie. If bad guy is in power with WMD, then bad guy has gotta’ go. How? We’ll just go in there, take 'em down and that’ll take care of that, and everyone lives happily ever after. Simple cause, simple effect…a simple solution. Well, I think that the results from that “operation” speak for themselves. With the closed mindset such that you have, continuing to debate this matter with you is pointless.

Good day.