What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Spendulus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Odg8nDgMQQ

Scientist Proves Thermite Was Used in 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolition

Hmm... Ok that one is  a bit bizarre. Not sure I'm ready to believe something like this xD

First, he does not "prove" anything.  Second, no thermite was found and none was used.  Thermite produces a brilliant white flash.

Has anyone seen that in the videos of the towers?

I await an answer.

[1714612088]

1714612088

[1714612088]

1714612088

[1714612088]

1714612088

[1714612088]

1714612088

[Spendulus]

Building 7 was burning uncontrolled for hours, during that time showed evidence of structural failure, and then collapsed.

I don't understand what is complicated about this, or what even lends itself to a plausible need for a conspiracy.

Uncontrolled fire.  It burned, then it fell.  Period.

So what?

" If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."
http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/



I don't know why people don't accepting facts, what happened and what is behind all of this and if we don't talk about insurance we can't get big picture.

It is a fact that it was more or less the first fire induced collapse of a steel frame high rise.  So what?  It was designed with the assumption that the sprinkler system and the water would be working to prevent fires and their effects.

Take those away, and you have the situation which existed.  There is no need to invoke conspiracies.

[tvbcof]

Nonsense on all counts.

To cause a steel frame building to fall, it is only necessary to heat the steel, then it has no strength.  Welders, blacksmiths do this routinely.  

Explosives do not "melt" anything.  They have a shattering effect, producing shrapnel.  This is because the shock of the explosive exceeds the speed of sound in the material.

I've done metal fabrication for fun and profit over the years.  In order to get steel into a condition where it loses a sigificant percentage of it's strength, one typically uses something like a rosebud.  This mixes hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen in a very controlled manner.  You then choose the ideal area and configuration to heat a carefully chosen weak point in the material.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait.  When you finally achieve the weakening needed for the job you want to do, you drop the torch in a panic and reef on the work like hell.

You know how global warming fraudsters (or more usually their ignorant minions) get their balls pounded flat over on the climate thread because they are trying do make it work with bogus pseudo-science?  Ya, it's like that.

[st4nl3y]

Fact is all three buildings were demolished using a mix of explosives including thermite which leaves no trace except molten iron, which was later found at the site. There are hundreds of eye-witnesses who claim they heard numerous explosions going off before the collapse occurred. Evidence is out there you can easily look it up and judge by yourself. There was no hi-jacking taking place at all, planes that hit the towers were military without windows or markings. Just do your own research, don't believe what government or the media is telling you.
Oh, and those who say buildings collapsed because of the jet fuel fire are just plain stupid and should not be taken seriously. Jet fuel burned off within 5 minutes and only served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wXcJA-et0

[Losvienleg]

I think that there was no plane and that it is a plot organised by the USA to grab some petrol and destroy everything in Irak. By the way, the USA didn't change since all that time, they're still pro-terrorists.

[Spendulus]

Fact is all three buildings were demolished using a mix of explosives including thermite

There was no hi-jacking taking place at all, planes that hit the towers were military without windows or markings.

Oh, and those who say buildings collapsed because of the jet fuel fire are just plain stupid and should not be taken seriously.

Jet fuel burned off within 5 minutes and only served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.

No, those are not facts.  Facts you ignore. 

Where did the people on the four scheduled airline flights go?  You know, the ones that you claim were not on the planes that hit the towers?  Where did the planes go?  Why were explosives needed along with planes?

Regarding jet fuel and post-crash fires, steel that is softened by heat does not care whether the heat came from jet fuel or burning office desks.

[Spendulus]

Nonsense on all counts.

To cause a steel frame building to fall, it is only necessary to heat the steel, then it has no strength.  Welders, blacksmiths do this routinely.  

Explosives do not "melt" anything.  They have a shattering effect, producing shrapnel.  This is because the shock of the explosive exceeds the speed of sound in the material.

I've done metal fabrication for fun and profit over the years.  In order to get steel into a condition where it loses a sigificant percentage of it's strength, one typically uses something like a rosebud.  This mixes hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen in a very controlled manner.  You then choose the ideal area and configuration to heat a carefully chosen weak point in the material.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait.  When you finally achieve the weakening needed for the job you want to do, you drop the torch in a panic and reef on the work like hell.

Excuse me but what is your point?  You are simply explaining a case where energy inputs less radiative, conductive and convective heat losses results in a slow but steady buildup of thermal energy.

It's just a matter of asking, what does it take to put enough joules into a material to soften it.  What amount of material burning toes that.

[tvbcof]

Nonsense on all counts.

To cause a steel frame building to fall, it is only necessary to heat the steel, then it has no strength.  Welders, blacksmiths do this routinely.  

Explosives do not "melt" anything.  They have a shattering effect, producing shrapnel.  This is because the shock of the explosive exceeds the speed of sound in the material.

I've done metal fabrication for fun and profit over the years.  In order to get steel into a condition where it loses a sigificant percentage of it's strength, one typically uses something like a rosebud.  This mixes hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen in a very controlled manner.  You then choose the ideal area and configuration to heat a carefully chosen weak point in the material.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait.  When you finally achieve the weakening needed for the job you want to do, you drop the torch in a panic and reef on the work like hell.

Excuse me but what is your point?  You are simply explaining a case where energy inputs less radiative, conductive and convective heat losses results in a slow but steady buildup of thermal energy.

It's just a matter of asking, what does it take to put enough joules into a material to soften it.  What amount of material burning toes that.

You need to set up the question correctly to get a meaningful answer.  I may or may not choose to dig out my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and work the problem if you do.  Probably not since vastly more work than I am capable of has already been done by AE911Truth.org.

My point is, of course, that the environment plays a big roll in the tenability of whether the amount of energy in the potentially combustible material was sufficient to weaken the structure enough to cause a collapse.  Note that none of the official investigators would release the visualizations they supposedly generated in spite of numerous requests from the engineering community.  Last I heard.  Without these, it is pointless to try to model the thermal inputs to deduce the plausibility of the initiation sequence.

Even if that could be done, there are countless other show-stopper problems with the 'official conspiracy theory' that a gaggle of Muslims in cave half way around the world did it.

[Spendulus]

Nonsense on all counts.

To cause a steel frame building to fall, it is only necessary to heat the steel, then it has no strength.  Welders, blacksmiths do this routinely.  

Explosives do not "melt" anything.  They have a shattering effect, producing shrapnel.  This is because the shock of the explosive exceeds the speed of sound in the material.

I've done metal fabrication for fun and profit over the years.  In order to get steel into a condition where it loses a sigificant percentage of it's strength, one typically uses something like a rosebud.  This mixes hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen in a very controlled manner.  You then choose the ideal area and configuration to heat a carefully chosen weak point in the material.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait.  When you finally achieve the weakening needed for the job you want to do, you drop the torch in a panic and reef on the work like hell.

Excuse me but what is your point?  You are simply explaining a case where energy inputs less radiative, conductive and convective heat losses results in a slow but steady buildup of thermal energy.

It's just a matter of asking, what does it take to put enough joules into a material to soften it.  What amount of material burning toes that.

You need to set up the question correctly to get a meaningful answer.  I may or may not choose to dig out my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and work the problem if you do.  Probably not since vastly more work than I am capable of has already been done by AE911Truth.org.

My point is, of course, that the environment plays a big roll in the tenability of whether the amount of energy in the potentially combustible material was sufficient to weaken the structure enough to cause a collapse.  Note that none of the official investigators would release the visualizations they supposedly generated in spite of numerous requests from the engineering community.  Last I heard.  Without these, it is pointless to try to model the thermal inputs to deduce the plausibility of the initiation sequence.

Even if that could be done, there are countless other show-stopper problems with the 'official conspiracy theory' that a gaggle of Muslims in cave half way around the world did it.

Okay, I understand.  I don't care about their "visualizations" or scenario modeling. 

There is no problem with simply looking at sources of heat and it's effects on nearby materials in an objective manner.  This is the way to understand things.

First, it is necessary to debunk the idea that "jet fuel won't melt steel."  By simply noting that there is no relation between melting steel and a building collapsing.

Second, it is necessary to understand that an ordinary fire certainly will generate temperatures sufficient to weaken steel such that a steel building collapses.  This is done by looking at the energy content (joules released) by jet fuel burning and by office contents burning.

Actually if you are lazy, which is not stupid, it's easier to just put a piece of rebar in the charcoal while grilling some hamburgers, and then pull it out and see how easy it bends.

These are very simple things, really.

[yugo23]

I think that there was no plane and that it is a plot organised by the USA to grab some petrol and destroy everything in Irak. By the way, the USA didn't change since all that time, they're still pro-terrorists.

Agreed for the plot part but the planes were actually there, that can't be an invention, you got dozens of amateur videos + the number of victims

[magnific61]

I think that there was no plane and that it is a plot organised by the USA to grab some petrol and destroy everything in Irak. By the way, the USA didn't change since all that time, they're still pro-terrorists.

Agreed for the plot part but the planes were actually there, that can't be an invention, you got dozens of amateur videos + the number of victims

I watched a video.  If i remember correctly CBS tv captured it from helicopter. In that video, plane crashes to building from one side and plane's nose appeared other side  as undamaged.
And one of tv correspondent says " it is a missile! "

[st4nl3y]

Fact is all three buildings were demolished using a mix of explosives including thermite

There was no hi-jacking taking place at all, planes that hit the towers were military without windows or markings.

Oh, and those who say buildings collapsed because of the jet fuel fire are just plain stupid and should not be taken seriously.

Jet fuel burned off within 5 minutes and only served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.

No, those are not facts.  Facts you ignore. 

Where did the people on the four scheduled airline flights go?  You know, the ones that you claim were not on the planes that hit the towers?  Where did the planes go?  Why were explosives needed along with planes?

Regarding jet fuel and post-crash fires, steel that is softened by heat does not care whether the heat came from jet fuel or burning office desks.

Yes, those are the facts backed by evidence, facts you chose to ignore.

[JasonXG]

Noone knows, but who knows the American government is scary. I find it very hard to believe passengers just sat there doing nothing. The whole thing is wierd.

[BADecker]

Fact is all three buildings were demolished using a mix of explosives including thermite

There was no hi-jacking taking place at all, planes that hit the towers were military without windows or markings.

Oh, and those who say buildings collapsed because of the jet fuel fire are just plain stupid and should not be taken seriously.

Jet fuel burned off within 5 minutes and only served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.

No, those are not facts.  Facts you ignore.  

Where did the people on the four scheduled airline flights go?  You know, the ones that you claim were not on the planes that hit the towers?  Where did the planes go?  Why were explosives needed along with planes?

Regarding jet fuel and post-crash fires, steel that is softened by heat does not care whether the heat came from jet fuel or burning office desks.

Of course, Spendy, you were there and absolutely know that those are not facts. Actually, you don't know what the facts are any better than anyone else.

All one need do to see that the whole official story is not facts is, Google "burning buildings" and view the images.

Even if st4nl3y happens to be wrong about his "facts," he is way closer to being right than the official story could ever think of being.

[arbitrage]

I watched a video.  If i remember correctly CBS tv captured it from helicopter. In that video, plane crashes to building from one side and plane's nose appeared other side  as undamaged.
And one of tv correspondent says " it is a missile! "

es you can watch on YouTube very good video about this case how they did it with editing and everything else, mixing sounds from streets and many of those videos actually are very different when you look at the nose of the airplane. You are right!

[arbitrage]

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-26/analysis-rocket-projectiles-wtc2

Watch this video and you can actually see how detonation taking place one by one floor,
and building collapsing without falling on the side or on neighboring buildings.
This is so evident and for those who are not professionals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V0tzmGgWggg

[valta4065]

Fact is all three buildings were demolished using a mix of explosives including thermite

There was no hi-jacking taking place at all, planes that hit the towers were military without windows or markings.

Oh, and those who say buildings collapsed because of the jet fuel fire are just plain stupid and should not be taken seriously.

Jet fuel burned off within 5 minutes and only served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.

No, those are not facts.  Facts you ignore.  

Where did the people on the four scheduled airline flights go?  You know, the ones that you claim were not on the planes that hit the towers?  Where did the planes go?  Why were explosives needed along with planes?

Regarding jet fuel and post-crash fires, steel that is softened by heat does not care whether the heat came from jet fuel or burning office desks.

Of course, Spendy, you were there and absolutely know that those are not facts. Actually, you don't know what the facts are any better than anyone else.

All one need do to see that the whole official story is not facts is, Google "burning buildings" and view the images.

Even if st4nl3y happens to be wrong about his "facts," he is way closer to being right than the official story could ever think of being.

Like Spendy ever needed to have facts or proofs to do anything xD

[arbitrage]

Maybe he has his reasons why he defending them..
I don't know i will change my opinion every time when i see enough evidence in opposite,
this is how we must accept facts, with doubts but we must investigate further more.

[Spendulus]

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-26/analysis-rocket-projectiles-wtc2

Watch this video and you can actually see how detonation taking place one by one floor,
and building collapsing without falling on the side or on neighboring buildings.
This is so evident and for those who are not professionals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V0tzmGgWggg

No, you do not see "detonation" in this video.

[magnific61]

It was claimed that all security cameras were removed days before attack. It was also claimed that men were working in buildings for days for unknown purpose.