[Vote] Who did 911?

[popcorn1]

You may have missed the video below.....

Yet another batshit crazy nutcase making a youtube video.

I've been thinking a lot recently about why clever people believe stupid things, especially conspiracy/cover-up type ideas. There are many reasons, relating to things like confirmation bias and pattern recognition, but I believe there's another reason why this happens, and it relates to video documentaries (where the majority of conspiritards get their information).

There is no such thing as an unbiased documentary. They can get close, but the director will always have an angle that he/she wants to portray. They do this by weaving their ideas into a narrative.

With conspiracy-type documentaries, the narrative is often cleverly devised so that it seems to build on itself throughout the film, making a certain agenda seem more plausible than it actually is. This gives the impression of multiple pieces of information compounding to create a convincing case. Just look at how many people think "Ancient Aliens" is a legitimate factual documentary - people are very easily taken in by the narrative, even though there is basically no evidence whatsoever.

Also, documentaries like this are inherently more biased than any other, because the makers have nothing to lose and everything to gain: A film about a 9/11 cover-up doesn't need to worry about any academic criticism, because they are already telling an alternative story. This gives the director carte blanche to push as shocking/misleading an agenda as possible, subsequently getting more youtube hits, and more money.

It's almost like a "meta-conspiracy"  

If a family member died in 9/11 towers..would you make a documentary telling lies..
Makes no sense to me ..you want the truth so why make a documentary full of lies and made up science.YOU WANT THE TRUTH..
But it seems the government wants no truth..
the government spent more money investigating Bill Clintons blow job ..
and spent less money on a 9/11 investigation ..if your mother died in 9/11 would you not want the whole truth and nothing but the truth..ANSWER YES..
So what you say is bullpoooo
Unless when we watch a 9/11 documentary..It must be like that dress on twitter..were i see a white and gold dress but you see a blue and black dress..
because no plane hit the PENTAGON because if you can see that a plane hit that building then my eyes  are playing tricks on me and i need a brain scan..

[1715177327]

1715177327

[1715177327]

1715177327

[1715177327]

1715177327

[Spendulus]

....
because no plane hit the PENTAGON because if you can see that a plane hit that building then my eyes  are playing tricks on me and i need a brain scan..

So, pop.  When are you scheduling that brain scan?

Also, let me know how many planes you've watched passing by you at 500 miles per hour at a hundred yards or so away.  I grew up watching supersonic fighter jet test runs.  Don't think you need a brain scan actually.  You couldn't see such a thing any more than you can see an airplane propeller or helicopter blades when they are moving.

[popcorn1]

.....
With conspiracy-type documentaries, the narrative is often cleverly devised so that it seems to build on itself throughout the film, making a certain agenda seem more plausible than it actually is. This gives the impression of multiple pieces of information compounding to create a convincing case. Just look at how many people think "Ancient Aliens" is a legitimate factual documentary - people are very easily taken in by the narrative, even though there is basically no evidence whatsoever.

Also, documentaries like this are inherently more biased than any other, because the makers have nothing to lose and everything to gain: A film about a 9/11 cover-up doesn't need to worry about any academic criticism, because they are already telling an alternative story. This gives the director carte blanche to push as shocking/misleading an agenda as possible, subsequently getting more youtube hits, and more money.

It's almost like a "meta-conspiracy"  

Yes, youtube seems to somehow be a fantastically good collaborative assist to conspiracy theories.

Check out the "NASA didn't go to the Moon" stuff.  It's incredibly bad and devoid of critical thinking or reasoning.  Yet many of these videos have 1M+ views.  That's not quite Miley Cyrus view levels (800M) but it's very high.  Yet high school math and physics will easily debunk these.

What I see is typically arguments based on mis stated premises.  For example, assume that the Tower beams had to be melted for the Tower to fall, then proceed to show how jet fuel couldn't have done that.  Anyone who's used a torch to heat up and bend rebar would just shake their heads at this kind of idiotic logic.

But these guys just go on and on about it.

How do you know..DID WE GO TO THE MOON..was you on the flight going to the moon..
so all the videos we see of the moon landings are all real..
you even say youtube videos can be fake..so what makes your videos the truth ..
was you there on the moon.. ANSWER NO..
see the trouble is spendy when you see videos they are truth ..but if someone else shows you a video its a fake..
so what makes the 9/11 truth videos fake ..but the moon landing videos real..
governments love propaganda..to control the sheep..
SO THANKS 9/11 YOU OPENED MY EYES..NOW I KNOW THE TRICKS THE GOVERNMENT PULLS ON THERE OWN PEOPLE..Before 9/11 no way on this earth i thought government acts like this.But now i know its all about the money..MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO AROUND..
Even the BBC NEWS IS A JOKE.. LIARS ..

[BADecker]

Wow, seriously the majority of the people think it was actually the US govt?  I mean I am not completely throwing that out the window I am just surprised to see so many people think it was internal

This isn't surprising. Think of taxes. People don't like taxes, but they like how government uses taxes even less. And think of the big real estate crash in 2008. It left many people homeless. True, it was the fault of many of these people and not the government, but the people had thought that the government had things covered for their protection. They found out differently.

The drone attacks against Pakistan haven't gone away even though much of the news about them seems to have. People don't trust that their own government wouldn't use drones on them, especially in the light of all the police brutality, lately.

There are lots of other things that are wearing on government trust.

Funny you bring up police brutality, when I think in most cases the brutality is justified.  Stop resisting arrest and you should be fine!  

Scary though, that the majority of people are so hateful toward the gov't they usually can't think straight, think of the people fighting police brutality for example.  I for one would hate to be a cop right now, because its way to dangerous and if you have to use force, people are going to hate you.

Almost no cases of police brutality are justified, other than when police are literally stopping violence with violence. Even in some of these cases, where it is a violent struggle - like a duel between two reasonably matched opponents - police should stay out of it, and simply observe that it doesn't move into an arena where bystanders or property are harmed or damaged. Only if it becomes apparent that one of the opponents is going to be severely damaged, then they should step in.

If you are playing a game of checkers, and one of you is winning, should the police step in and stop the game? Just the same, if it is a violent game, what gives the police the right to enforce their own rules, except if it is going to interfere with bystanders? They don't have the right. It is as much police brutality as if they stopped your game of checkers.

Wake up, you sheeple. You are so brainwashed into thinking that you have freedom, when all along you are slaves of government thinking. Government has so brainwashed people like Spendy, that even people who are as smart as he can't see that 9/11 was an inside job.

[BADecker]

....
because no plane hit the PENTAGON because if you can see that a plane hit that building then my eyes  are playing tricks on me and i need a brain scan..

So, pop.  When are you scheduling that brain scan?

Also, let me know how many planes you've watched passing by you at 500 miles per hour at a hundred yards or so away.  I grew up watching supersonic fighter jet test runs.  Don't think you need a brain scan actually.  You couldn't see such a thing any more than you can see an airplane propeller or helicopter blades when they are moving.

But, obviously, you missed the cruise missile tests.  

Besides, 500 mph is only 734 feet per second. Persistence of vision keeps something like this visible for seconds after you see it happen.

[Spendulus]

.....
With conspiracy-type documentaries, the narrative is often cleverly devised so that it seems to build on itself throughout the film, making a certain agenda seem more plausible than it actually is. This gives the impression of multiple pieces of information compounding to create a convincing case. Just look at how many people think "Ancient Aliens" is a legitimate factual documentary - people are very easily taken in by the narrative, even though there is basically no evidence whatsoever.

Also, documentaries like this are inherently more biased than any other, because the makers have nothing to lose and everything to gain: A film about a 9/11 cover-up doesn't need to worry about any academic criticism, because they are already telling an alternative story. This gives the director carte blanche to push as shocking/misleading an agenda as possible, subsequently getting more youtube hits, and more money.

It's almost like a "meta-conspiracy"  

Yes, youtube seems to somehow be a fantastically good collaborative assist to conspiracy theories.

Check out the "NASA didn't go to the Moon" stuff.  It's incredibly bad and devoid of critical thinking or reasoning.  Yet many of these videos have 1M+ views.  That's not quite Miley Cyrus view levels (800M) but it's very high.  Yet high school math and physics will easily debunk these.

What I see is typically arguments based on mis stated premises.  For example, assume that the Tower beams had to be melted for the Tower to fall, then proceed to show how jet fuel couldn't have done that.  Anyone who's used a torch to heat up and bend rebar would just shake their heads at this kind of idiotic logic.

But these guys just go on and on about it.

How do you know..DID WE GO TO THE MOON..
....
Even the BBC NEWS IS A JOKE.. LIARS ..

You haven't seen any videos of the moon landings, because there were no cameras on the moon to record them.

You've might have seen one or two videos of the J series lunar ascent modules taking off.

Well, I certainly have to agree with you about the BBC.

[popcorn1]

.....
With conspiracy-type documentaries, the narrative is often cleverly devised so that it seems to build on itself throughout the film, making a certain agenda seem more plausible than it actually is. This gives the impression of multiple pieces of information compounding to create a convincing case. Just look at how many people think "Ancient Aliens" is a legitimate factual documentary - people are very easily taken in by the narrative, even though there is basically no evidence whatsoever.

Also, documentaries like this are inherently more biased than any other, because the makers have nothing to lose and everything to gain: A film about a 9/11 cover-up doesn't need to worry about any academic criticism, because they are already telling an alternative story. This gives the director carte blanche to push as shocking/misleading an agenda as possible, subsequently getting more youtube hits, and more money.

It's almost like a "meta-conspiracy"  

Yes, youtube seems to somehow be a fantastically good collaborative assist to conspiracy theories.

Check out the "NASA didn't go to the Moon" stuff.  It's incredibly bad and devoid of critical thinking or reasoning.  Yet many of these videos have 1M+ views.  That's not quite Miley Cyrus view levels (800M) but it's very high.  Yet high school math and physics will easily debunk these.

What I see is typically arguments based on mis stated premises.  For example, assume that the Tower beams had to be melted for the Tower to fall, then proceed to show how jet fuel couldn't have done that.  Anyone who's used a torch to heat up and bend rebar would just shake their heads at this kind of idiotic logic.

But these guys just go on and on about it.

How do you know..DID WE GO TO THE MOON..
....
Even the BBC NEWS IS A JOKE.. LIARS ..

You haven't seen any videos of the moon landings, because there were no cameras on the moon to record them.

You've might have seen one or two videos of the J series lunar ascent modules taking off.

Well, I certainly have to agree with you about the BBC.

I am not saying they never went to the moon.. I don.t know what is truth any more..
what ever the government tells us is it all truth..

Going to the moon..
a fight against the Russians to see who can land man on the moon first.
all about which country is the cleverest nation is a communist nation better than capitalist nation.
So have the USA lied to win ..WHO KNOWS ?plenty of people think its all a lie.. and some good points to say why they never went to the moon

Sandy hook shootings
was this a set up so you will give up the right to bare arms..WHO KNOWS..But plenty of people with some good points seem to think it was a set up..

JFK shooting
he was going to shut down the CIA was this a set up.. WHO KNOWS..But plenty of people seem to think so..

9/11
One thing i do know is NO PASSENGER PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON..so why the need to do this
TRILLIONS GO MISSING ..Plus i could say plenty more reasons why 9/11 was a set up..

You only need to look who the MR BUSHES ARE..
THEY ARE THE MOST POWERFUL WESTERN FAMILY ON THIS PLANET..
Do the Bushes want to do good YES THEY DO but money comes first and always will..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRKKOUHA4A..they are just making sure they stay at the top FOR EVER AND EVER..
There offspring will have billions and billions until this planet blows up
 ITS NOT THE PEOPLES AMERICA..ITS THE BUSHES AMERICA THEY OWN IT..
So what you need to do is invent something everyone wants make billions and then buy your son a presidents job..and then you can give all your family and friends all the best contracts and the best money making jobs ..SIMPLES..
The only hard part is inventing something everyone wants..THEN YOU CAN BECOME LIKE A BUSH..
So its up to you do you become a good president or a bad one ..its all up to you..

so you see its not so hard to understand why government lies to its people ..
If you where in power and on 250k a year job and someone says let me build that building there or make this law up and i will give you a million a year..how many will take this offer up.
almost everyone because if you got kids you want them to have everything in life and forever..

so politic elections should be public funded and plus the president and all his staff should get paid well more money..plus after the 5 year term you should have a vote on how good he or she as been ..and if they have been good then you double there pay as a bonus..

if there on good money they wont take back handers and if they get found out it should be classed as treason ..
just say the president gets paid 10 million for his 5 year term..and does proper politics you would make more in taxes getting paid.. contracts going to people who have nothing to do with the governments people..so more wealth will get spread around not just to the governments family and friends..

WOW I THINK I WILL SHUT UP NOW
blah blah blah blah i have been going on a bit SHUT UP PLANT POT..this is directed at myself..
av a nice day all i am off
 I THINK I HAVE LOST THE PLOT

[vero]

The Illuminati, demons shape shifted into planes and did 9/11.The pentagon was hit by a missile, and there was no plane in Pennsylvania. you have been lied to. Just saying minutes after the planes or demons hit the buildings they set off bombs inside the building to destroy it

[BADecker]

The Illuminati, demons shape shifted into planes and did 9/11.The pentagon was hit by a missile, and there was no plane in Pennsylvania. you have been lied to. Just saying minutes after the planes or demons hit the buildings they set off bombs inside the building to destroy it

The point isn't that the 9/11 happenings didn't happen. We all know that they did. The point is that there isn't any conspiracy theory that seems plausible about who did it. The official story is one of the least plausible. You Illuminati-shape-shifting demons is almost as bad as the official conspiracy theory.

[Spendulus]

....
Going to the moon..
a fight against the Russians to see who can land man on the moon first.
all about which country is the cleverest nation is a communist nation better than capitalist nation.
So have the USA lied to win ..WHO KNOWS ?plenty of people think its all a lie.. and some good points to say why they never went to the moon
.....
WOW I THINK I WILL SHUT UP NOW
blah blah blah blah i have been going on a bit SHUT UP PLANT POT..this is directed at myself..
av a nice day all i am off
 I THINK I HAVE LOST THE PLOT

Well, Popcorn, man has done terrible things, but he has also done great things.

You like youtube, check out the Apollo videos.  Remember they didn't have all the fancy digital editing in the 1960s. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzCsDVfPQqk

[BADecker]

Blacksmith Takes on 9/11 Truthers: “For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT”








https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

    WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT!!!

    #1 you did NOT use any jet fuel at all in this test. You let that bar sit in a furnace for a long period of time.. BUT ALSO, you did NOT show people what you really did to that other bar of steel. Jet fuel’s flash point is only seconds where it burns at it’s hottest then the temperature drops to about 800 degrees. Next time you do this test, use jet fuel, NOT A BLAZING FURNACE! I worked for airlines for many years and we used thin steel V beams at the Airport Fire Department that we poured jet fuel in and purposely lit on fire to train new people how to properly extinguish a jet fuel fire. The fire used to burn for a good couple of minutes before we would extinguish it and it didn’t even touch the fabric of the steel nor even weakened it.

    #2 NEVER IN THE HISTORY of mankind has a steel building collapsed from a fire prior to this and even till today. The building in Dubai burned for over 24 hours in ragging flames and guess what… It didn’t collapse, a B-17 Bomber slammed into the Empire State Building in the 1950s and guess what?? It never collapsed… So regardless of your little demo, NON of it debunks this. The architect of the WTC even stated the buildings were built to with stand MULTIPLE hits by aircraft. Plus a building doesn’t fall at free fall speed from something like this, ONLY in a demolition does a building fall perfectly straight down in a free fall speed.. ONLY… not aircraft hitting the building. NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS even stated bombs brought those towers down. It was members of the NYFD that started the 9/11 truth movement NOT conspiracy theorists.. NYFD even had to evacuate building 7 that is not even mentioned in the official report, they were told to evacuate the building and vacate the area because they are pulling (demolishing it) the building. You sir haven’t debunked squat! ANYONE that deals in any sorta way with Jet Fuel which I used to fuel planes long ago, knows that Jet Fuel CAN NOT melt steel nor weaken structural steel beams.. YOU FORGOT ONE LITTLE THING CHAP! All beams in a steel structure are sprayed with a fire retardant foam that would dramatically increase it’s weakened and melting point.

    Anyone doubts this, test it for yourself!

Read more at http://www.thedailysheeple.com/blacksmith-takes-on-911-truthers-for-the-undying-911-moronic-jet-fuel-argument_122015.

[popcorn1]

Blacksmith Takes on 9/11 Truthers: “For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT”








https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

    WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT!!!

    #1 you did NOT use any jet fuel at all in this test. You let that bar sit in a furnace for a long period of time.. BUT ALSO, you did NOT show people what you really did to that other bar of steel. Jet fuel’s flash point is only seconds where it burns at it’s hottest then the temperature drops to about 800 degrees. Next time you do this test, use jet fuel, NOT A BLAZING FURNACE! I worked for airlines for many years and we used thin steel V beams at the Airport Fire Department that we poured jet fuel in and purposely lit on fire to train new people how to properly extinguish a jet fuel fire. The fire used to burn for a good couple of minutes before we would extinguish it and it didn’t even touch the fabric of the steel nor even weakened it.

    #2 NEVER IN THE HISTORY of mankind has a steel building collapsed from a fire prior to this and even till today. The building in Dubai burned for over 24 hours in ragging flames and guess what… It didn’t collapse, a B-17 Bomber slammed into the Empire State Building in the 1950s and guess what?? It never collapsed… So regardless of your little demo, NON of it debunks this. The architect of the WTC even stated the buildings were built to with stand MULTIPLE hits by aircraft. Plus a building doesn’t fall at free fall speed from something like this, ONLY in a demolition does a building fall perfectly straight down in a free fall speed.. ONLY… not aircraft hitting the building. NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS even stated bombs brought those towers down. It was members of the NYFD that started the 9/11 truth movement NOT conspiracy theorists.. NYFD even had to evacuate building 7 that is not even mentioned in the official report, they were told to evacuate the building and vacate the area because they are pulling (demolishing it) the building. You sir haven’t debunked squat! ANYONE that deals in any sorta way with Jet Fuel which I used to fuel planes long ago, knows that Jet Fuel CAN NOT melt steel nor weaken structural steel beams.. YOU FORGOT ONE LITTLE THING CHAP! All beams in a steel structure are sprayed with a fire retardant foam that would dramatically increase it’s weakened and melting point.

    Anyone doubts this, test it for yourself!

Read more at http://www.thedailysheeple.com/blacksmith-takes-on-911-truthers-for-the-undying-911-moronic-jet-fuel-argument_122015.

IT is a joke what that guy done with the steel rods 
A HILL BILLY THINKING HE SOLVED THE PROBLEM
No were not as thick as you 

But this subject is so boring.. we all know what really happened 
FLYING GOATS AM I RIGHT SPENDY...

[Spendulus]

Blacksmith Takes on 9/11 Truthers: “For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT”








https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

    WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT!!!

    #1 you did NOT use any jet fuel at all in this test. You let that bar sit in a furnace for a long period of time.. BUT ALSO, you did NOT show people what you really did to that other bar of steel. Jet fuel’s flash point is only seconds where it burns at it’s hottest then the temperature drops to about 800 degrees. Next time you do this test, use jet fuel, NOT A BLAZING FURNACE! I worked for airlines for many years and we used thin steel V beams at the Airport Fire Department that we poured jet fuel in and purposely lit on fire to train new people how to properly extinguish a jet fuel fire. The fire used to burn for a good couple of minutes before we would extinguish it and it didn’t even touch the fabric of the steel nor even weakened it.

    #2 NEVER IN THE HISTORY of mankind has a steel building collapsed from a fire prior to this and even till today. The building in Dubai burned for over 24 hours in ragging flames and guess what… It didn’t collapse, a B-17 Bomber slammed into the Empire State Building in the 1950s and guess what?? It never collapsed… So regardless of your little demo, NON of it debunks this. The architect of the WTC even stated the buildings were built to with stand MULTIPLE hits by aircraft. Plus a building doesn’t fall at free fall speed from something like this, ONLY in a demolition does a building fall perfectly straight down in a free fall speed.. ONLY… not aircraft hitting the building. NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS even stated bombs brought those towers down. It was members of the NYFD that started the 9/11 truth movement NOT conspiracy theorists.. NYFD even had to evacuate building 7 that is not even mentioned in the official report, they were told to evacuate the building and vacate the area because they are pulling (demolishing it) the building. You sir haven’t debunked squat! ANYONE that deals in any sorta way with Jet Fuel which I used to fuel planes long ago, knows that Jet Fuel CAN NOT melt steel nor weaken structural steel beams.. YOU FORGOT ONE LITTLE THING CHAP! All beams in a steel structure are sprayed with a fire retardant foam that would dramatically increase it’s weakened and melting point.

    Anyone doubts this, test it for yourself!

Read more at http://www.thedailysheeple.com/blacksmith-takes-on-911-truthers-for-the-undying-911-moronic-jet-fuel-argument_122015.

IT is a joke what that guy done with the steel rods 
A HILL BILLY THINKING HE SOLVED THE PROBLEM
No were not as thick as you 

But this subject is so boring.. we all know what really happened 
FLYING GOATS AM I RIGHT SPENDY...

Absolutely.  Muslim goats, though.  Muslim.  NOT CIA GOATS!

[BADecker]

DC Treybil's comment at Freedom's Phoenix - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/188468-2015-12-23-blacksmith-takes-on-9-11-truthers-for-the-undying-9.htm - (Scroll down to the comments.)

This comment is regarding the blacksmith video in the above post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1025761.msg13340840#msg13340840.


I'm looking at the info provided on this site: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

According to this article, jet fuel burns between 800 - 1,500 degrees F. But where? In the combustion chamber of a jet engine with ideal fuel/air mixtures? The black smoke pouring out of the WTC towers indicated an oxygen-starved flame - definitely on the low end of that range.

Also, consider how slowly the smoke appears to be rising. Distance to camera may be a factor here, but 800 degree air would be hauling butt skyward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uKfER3-Vm4 In my youth, I sat in a car for 20 minutes or better within 1,000 feet of the 2nd largest sawmill in the South as its inventory of millions of board feet of (mostly) pine wood burned to the ground. (the mill was spared) The smoke was clear. The flames were hot enough to produce "fire-tornadoes". Even 1,000 feet away, the heat would have been uncomfortable except for the fact it was right at freezing outside. The smoke rose vertically rapidly, even soon after the fire started, and spread out horizontally high above when it reached an inversion layer. Look at the smoke in this video. Note absence of fire tornadoes. Despite fires visible in this video, I think the slowly rising smoke is a better indication of how hot materials in the building were.

In college, I took an "Industrial Processes" course. As part of that course, classmembers were required to construct a belt-driven table-mounted arbor wheel. The housings were aluminum.

At the foundry, we were told the aluminum had been in the furnace for considerable time (maybe even overnight) and the Professor thanked the foundry attendant for taking care of all that so the aluminum would be melted when we got there.

While the blacksmith in the video tells you about the steel being in a FURNACE, just like the aluminum for the arbors was in a furnace, he does not tell you how long it was in there.

The article cited above states that spots in the fire were over 1,800 degrees F. Ok, but that is SPOTS IN THE FIRES. If the building is ventilated well enough for fire to burn at all, it is also ventillated enough to bring in cooling (relatively speaking) air.

So never mind any of the temperatures in the article. What was the temperature of the air in contact with the steel structural memebers?

It is not enough to heat the steel and concrete at critical support points - surrounding materials have to be heated as well. This is because not only is heat CONDUCTED away from the site of heating, it is also RADIATED away to cooler objects nearby. I base this on what I was told about WWII high altitude bombers. Crews complained the cabin was cold. This was odd since thermometers indicated an air temperature of 80 degrees. The problem was that separated from that 80 degree air was air at -50 blocked only by the thin aluminum skin of the plane. Body heat of the crewmembers was being RADIATED to that cold air outside. To make the crew comfortable, air temperature had to be raised to 115 degrees inside the cabin.

How many times after a clear night with a low of 35 to 38 have you gone to your vehicle to find the roof and maybe even the windshield frosted up? That is radiative cooling.

Long story short, I don't think there was enough time (between impact and collapse) to get everything hot enough to fail from just fires.

FWIW.

DC Treybil

[galdur]

I guess that in airplane crashes most of the fuel burns up in the initial explosion, that familiar fireball. What´s left of the fuel after that probably doesn´t last long, maybe a couple minutes. In the case of the towers, what is then left is your regular office fire.

[Spendulus]

DC Treybil's comment at Freedom's Phoenix - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/188468-2015-12-23-blacksmith-takes-on-9-11-truthers-for-the-undying-9.htm - (Scroll down to the comments.)

This comment is regarding the blacksmith video in the above post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1025761.msg13340840#msg13340840.


I'm looking at the info provided on this site: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

According to this article, jet fuel burns between 800 - 1,500 degrees F. But where? In the combustion chamber of a jet engine with ideal fuel/air mixtures? The black smoke pouring out of the WTC towers indicated an oxygen-starved flame - definitely on the low end of that range.

Also, consider how slowly the smoke appears to be rising. Distance to camera may be a factor here, but 800 degree air would be hauling butt skyward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uKfER3-Vm4 In my youth, I sat in a car for 20 minutes or better within 1,000 feet of the 2nd largest sawmill in the South as its inventory of millions of board feet of (mostly) pine wood burned to the ground. (the mill was spared) The smoke was clear. The flames were hot enough to produce "fire-tornadoes". Even 1,000 feet away, the heat would have been uncomfortable except for the fact it was right at freezing outside. The smoke rose vertically rapidly, even soon after the fire started, and spread out horizontally high above when it reached an inversion layer. Look at the smoke in this video. Note absence of fire tornadoes. Despite fires visible in this video, I think the slowly rising smoke is a better indication of how hot materials in the building were.

In college, I took an "Industrial Processes" course. As part of that course, classmembers were required to construct a belt-driven table-mounted arbor wheel. The housings were aluminum.

At the foundry, we were told the aluminum had been in the furnace for considerable time (maybe even overnight) and the Professor thanked the foundry attendant for taking care of all that so the aluminum would be melted when we got there.

While the blacksmith in the video tells you about the steel being in a FURNACE, just like the aluminum for the arbors was in a furnace, he does not tell you how long it was in there.

The article cited above states that spots in the fire were over 1,800 degrees F. Ok, but that is SPOTS IN THE FIRES. If the building is ventilated well enough for fire to burn at all, it is also ventillated enough to bring in cooling (relatively speaking) air.

So never mind any of the temperatures in the article. What was the temperature of the air in contact with the steel structural memebers?

It is not enough to heat the steel and concrete at critical support points - surrounding materials have to be heated as well. This is because not only is heat CONDUCTED away from the site of heating, it is also RADIATED away to cooler objects nearby. I base this on what I was told about WWII high altitude bombers. Crews complained the cabin was cold. This was odd since thermometers indicated an air temperature of 80 degrees. The problem was that separated from that 80 degree air was air at -50 blocked only by the thin aluminum skin of the plane. Body heat of the crewmembers was being RADIATED to that cold air outside. To make the crew comfortable, air temperature had to be raised to 115 degrees inside the cabin.

How many times after a clear night with a low of 35 to 38 have you gone to your vehicle to find the roof and maybe even the windshield frosted up? That is radiative cooling.

Long story short, I don't think there was enough time (between impact and collapse) to get everything hot enough to fail from just fires.

FWIW.

DC Treybil

For starters, let's ignore the clip about WWII bombers.  ANYBODY who has flown in high altitude aircraft of the military sort would tell you that's bone chilling cold.  That's because except for your little cabin, it's -50 a few inches away.  

To solve this riddle, we first look up the grade of steel used for the twin towers beams.

A36.

We then look up the strength characteristics of A36 steel.  Strength vs temperature.  We find...

http://www.academia.edu/346621/High-Temperature_Properties_of_Steel_for_Fire_Resistance_Modeling_of_Structures

Basically, strength declines rapidly past 650F.

I would note also that the guy thinks black soot smoke is evidence of incomplete combustion of jet fuel.  Fraid not.  It is evidence of all that plastic and wood and other crap on those floors burning and their parts being combined in the smoke trail from the buildings.

Also he thinks 800F air should be "hauling butt skywards."  That's a function of the wind speed at the altitude involved, plus the temperature difference between the hot air and the ambient air.

Any other questions, I am happy to answer them.

911 was the world of Muslim terrorists, Islamic extremists who decided to go to war with the West.

[BADecker]

I guess that in airplane crashes most of the fuel burns up in the initial explosion, that familiar fireball. What´s left of the fuel after that probably doesn´t last long, maybe a couple minutes. In the case of the towers, what is then left is your regular office fire.

It mostly boils off, or is evaporated later.   

[BADecker]

DC Treybil's comment at Freedom's Phoenix - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/188468-2015-12-23-blacksmith-takes-on-9-11-truthers-for-the-undying-9.htm - (Scroll down to the comments.)

This comment is regarding the blacksmith video in the above post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1025761.msg13340840#msg13340840.


I'm looking at the info provided on this site: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

According to this article, jet fuel burns between 800 - 1,500 degrees F. But where? In the combustion chamber of a jet engine with ideal fuel/air mixtures? The black smoke pouring out of the WTC towers indicated an oxygen-starved flame - definitely on the low end of that range.

Also, consider how slowly the smoke appears to be rising. Distance to camera may be a factor here, but 800 degree air would be hauling butt skyward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uKfER3-Vm4 In my youth, I sat in a car for 20 minutes or better within 1,000 feet of the 2nd largest sawmill in the South as its inventory of millions of board feet of (mostly) pine wood burned to the ground. (the mill was spared) The smoke was clear. The flames were hot enough to produce "fire-tornadoes". Even 1,000 feet away, the heat would have been uncomfortable except for the fact it was right at freezing outside. The smoke rose vertically rapidly, even soon after the fire started, and spread out horizontally high above when it reached an inversion layer. Look at the smoke in this video. Note absence of fire tornadoes. Despite fires visible in this video, I think the slowly rising smoke is a better indication of how hot materials in the building were.

In college, I took an "Industrial Processes" course. As part of that course, classmembers were required to construct a belt-driven table-mounted arbor wheel. The housings were aluminum.

At the foundry, we were told the aluminum had been in the furnace for considerable time (maybe even overnight) and the Professor thanked the foundry attendant for taking care of all that so the aluminum would be melted when we got there.

While the blacksmith in the video tells you about the steel being in a FURNACE, just like the aluminum for the arbors was in a furnace, he does not tell you how long it was in there.

The article cited above states that spots in the fire were over 1,800 degrees F. Ok, but that is SPOTS IN THE FIRES. If the building is ventilated well enough for fire to burn at all, it is also ventillated enough to bring in cooling (relatively speaking) air.

So never mind any of the temperatures in the article. What was the temperature of the air in contact with the steel structural memebers?

It is not enough to heat the steel and concrete at critical support points - surrounding materials have to be heated as well. This is because not only is heat CONDUCTED away from the site of heating, it is also RADIATED away to cooler objects nearby. I base this on what I was told about WWII high altitude bombers. Crews complained the cabin was cold. This was odd since thermometers indicated an air temperature of 80 degrees. The problem was that separated from that 80 degree air was air at -50 blocked only by the thin aluminum skin of the plane. Body heat of the crewmembers was being RADIATED to that cold air outside. To make the crew comfortable, air temperature had to be raised to 115 degrees inside the cabin.

How many times after a clear night with a low of 35 to 38 have you gone to your vehicle to find the roof and maybe even the windshield frosted up? That is radiative cooling.

Long story short, I don't think there was enough time (between impact and collapse) to get everything hot enough to fail from just fires.

FWIW.

DC Treybil

For starters, let's ignore the clip about WWII bombers.  ANYBODY who has flown in high altitude aircraft of the military sort would tell you that's bone chilling cold.  That's because except for your little cabin, it's -50 a few inches away.  

To solve this riddle, we first look up the grade of steel used for the twin towers beams.

A36.

We then look up the strength characteristics of A36 steel.  Strength vs temperature.  We find...

http://www.academia.edu/346621/High-Temperature_Properties_of_Steel_for_Fire_Resistance_Modeling_of_Structures

Basically, strength declines rapidly past 650F.

I would note also that the guy thinks black soot smoke is evidence of incomplete combustion of jet fuel.  Fraid not.  It is evidence of all that plastic and wood and other crap on those floors burning and their parts being combined in the smoke trail from the buildings.

Also he thinks 800F air should be "hauling butt skywards."  That's a function of the wind speed at the altitude involved, plus the temperature difference between the hot air and the ambient air.

Any other questions, I am happy to answer them.

911 was the world of Muslim terrorists, Islamic extremists who decided to go to war with the West.

Your points are way incomplete enough to suggest any conclusion you might want to suggest about them.

Combined happenings at on the whole 9/11 day show that 9/11 was an inside job, even if some Muslims had a little to do with it.

[galdur]

What I´ve never understood since 9/11

Since a certain structural damage plus fuel explosion/burning worked so perfectly on three out of two massive skyscrapers in New York City

why are they still using those complicated and time consuming and I´m sure vastly more expensive old methods of demolition charges going off in sequence? It´s very unusual for businessmen to go to any special lengths to unnecessarily increase expenses and time spent. It´s mysterious.

[galdur]

I mean; they had computer models show how it took place and then it rather obviously follows that those computer models could be put to practical use in planning and setting up building demolition. But all that business is still using outdated and expensive high explosives and all that manpower and fuss and time around that??? Doesn´t make sense.