What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[tvbcof]

I don't let these conspiracy theories get to my head. When there is a mystery, or any sense of doubt, people always jump to the easiest conclusion, and in this case it sparked a major conspiracy theory. I do believe it was a terrorist attack, not our own government.

Although I have repeatedly asked believers to produce credible conspiracy theories about 911, they do not, perhaps because they cannot.
...

Ya, because some Muslims hiding out in some caves in Afghanistan makes the most sense by far.  Oh, but that is in itself a conspiracy theory now isn't it?

I might add that there has been considerable resistant on the 'official conspiracy theory' side to be forthright with evidence or 'credible theories'.  Since they had control of the crime scene, control of the intel, control of the money, etc, etc, I would say that in a just world (which isn't filled with gullible retards) the onus would be on them to produce a believable account of all of the observations.  And they've failed miserably in my and a lot of other people's opinions.

[1714633483]

1714633483

[1714633483]

1714633483

[1714633483]

1714633483

[1714633483]

1714633483

[Spendulus]

I don't let these conspiracy theories get to my head. When there is a mystery, or any sense of doubt, people always jump to the easiest conclusion, and in this case it sparked a major conspiracy theory. I do believe it was a terrorist attack, not our own government.

Although I have repeatedly asked believers to produce credible conspiracy theories about 911, they do not, perhaps because they cannot.
...

Ya, because some Muslims hiding out in some caves in Afghanistan makes the most sense by far.  Oh, but that is in itself a conspiracy theory now isn't it?

I might add that there has been considerable resistant on the 'official conspiracy theory' side to be forthright with evidence or 'credible theories'.  Since they had control of the crime scene, control of the intel, control of the money, etc, etc, I would say that in a just world (which isn't filled with gullible retards) the onus would be on them to produce a believable account of all of the observations.  And they've failed miserably in my and a lot of other people's opinions.

Unfortunately, if you go with the view of discounting alleged facts and info from those in control of the crime scene, control of the intel, etc you can disbelieve virtually anything.

If guys running flight schools tell me 20 muslims trained there, and airport cameras show those same guys getting on planes, and people on the planes use their cell phones telling loved ones the planes have been hijacked by muslims, and then everyone in NY sees those same planes rammed into the twin towers, somehow you would like to refute that?  Good luck.

I think you could argue as to the management of the attack, but not the facts I laid out.

[criptix]

I didnt see any mathematical or physical evidence or explanation.
Can you please stick to that instead of opinions, hearsay or whatever you think might be true?

So far i didnt see one poster archieving that.

For what, exactly?

 

You asked.  What specific phenomena do you want an explanation for?

Ah nvm my bad. I understood it wrong.

How about we start at the possible heat energy of jet fuel (kerosine) and stability of steel(frames)?

Still waiting for a scientific explaination with numbers and stuff 

Would be awesome if one side could deliver some facts.

[Spendulus]

I didnt see any mathematical or physical evidence or explanation.
Can you please stick to that instead of opinions, hearsay or whatever you think might be true?

So far i didnt see one poster archieving that.

For what, exactly?

 

You asked.  What specific phenomena do you want an explanation for?

Ah nvm my bad. I understood it wrong.

How about we start at the possible heat energy of jet fuel (kerosine) and stability of steel(frames)?

Still waiting for a scientific explaination with numbers and stuff  

Would be awesome if one side could deliver some facts.

I choose a target temperature of 600C as steel at that point has only some 40% of it's normal strength.
It's red hot, roughly.  From there it will get orange, then yellow, then white, then melt.

q = m x C x (Tf - Ti)

C= heat capacity for steel, 0.450 J/degree C
Tf= final temperature in Celcius
m=mass
q=specific heat, heat required to effect said change in T

q = 258.75 joules/gram iron to raise it's temperature to the point it's strength is only 40%

259 kj / kilogram



********

Energy content of Jet A kerosene - 42.8 Mj/kg.  

Conclusion.  One kilogram of jet fuel will move 165 kilograms of steel to a temperature at which it has only 40% of it's initial strength.

Note that all plastics and many other materials in office environments are petrochemical based, and really only represent "additional fuel."

[criptix]

I didnt see any mathematical or physical evidence or explanation.
Can you please stick to that instead of opinions, hearsay or whatever you think might be true?

So far i didnt see one poster archieving that.

For what, exactly?

 

You asked.  What specific phenomena do you want an explanation for?

Ah nvm my bad. I understood it wrong.

How about we start at the possible heat energy of jet fuel (kerosine) and stability of steel(frames)?

Still waiting for a scientific explaination with numbers and stuff 

Would be awesome if one side could deliver some facts.

I choose a target temperature of 600C as steel at that point has only some 40% of it's normal strength.
It's red hot, roughly.  From there it will get orange, then yellow, then white, then melt.

q = m x C x (Tf - Ti)

C= heat capacity for steel, 0.450 J/degree C
Tf= final temperature in Celcius
m=mass
q=specific heat, heat required to effect said change in T

q = 258.75 joules/gram iron to raise it's temperature to the point it's strength is only 40%

259 kj / kilogram



********

Energy content of Jet A kerosene - 42.8 Mj/kg. 

Conclusion.  One kilogram of jet fuel will move 165 kilograms of steel to a temperature at which it has only 40% of it's initial strength.

Note that all plastics and many other materials in office environments are petrochemical based, and really only represent "additional fuel."

Thank you. Looks pretty good for a start.

Do we have exact numbers of the amount of steel build in every floor?
Also a estimation of the additional heat energy through the other burnable elements?

With that we could make a estimation of how much energy was there and needed to make the steelframe unstable to the point of collapse.

Edit

I forgot we would also need the amount of jet fuel to do the estimation.

[Spendulus]

I didnt see any mathematical or physical evidence or explanation.
Can you please stick to that instead of opinions, hearsay or whatever you think might be true?

So far i didnt see one poster archieving that.

For what, exactly?

 

You asked.  What specific phenomena do you want an explanation for?

Ah nvm my bad. I understood it wrong.

How about we start at the possible heat energy of jet fuel (kerosine) and stability of steel(frames)?

Still waiting for a scientific explaination with numbers and stuff 

Would be awesome if one side could deliver some facts.

I choose a target temperature of 600C as steel at that point has only some 40% of it's normal strength.
It's red hot, roughly.  From there it will get orange, then yellow, then white, then melt.

q = m x C x (Tf - Ti)

C= heat capacity for steel, 0.450 J/degree C
Tf= final temperature in Celcius
m=mass
q=specific heat, heat required to effect said change in T

q = 258.75 joules/gram iron to raise it's temperature to the point it's strength is only 40%

259 kj / kilogram



********

Energy content of Jet A kerosene - 42.8 Mj/kg. 

Conclusion.  One kilogram of jet fuel will move 165 kilograms of steel to a temperature at which it has only 40% of it's initial strength.

Note that all plastics and many other materials in office environments are petrochemical based, and really only represent "additional fuel."

Thank you. Looks pretty good for a start.

Do we have exact numbers of the amount of steel build in every floor?
Also a estimation of the additional heat energy through the other burnable elements?

With that we could make a estimation of how much energy was there and needed to make the steelframe unstable to the point of collapse.

Edit

I forgot we would also need the amount of jet fuel to do the estimation.

  Yes, I believe all those numbers are available.  BY the way I'm using a 40% strength factor because a lot of engineering overdesigns are 2.5x strength required when humans are closeby 2.5 --> 40%.  Simplifies things.

Basically it only needs to be shown for one floor, the pancaking is self perpetuating.

I'll look around and post that by tomorrow.  Like for a rough guess at something like this someone might say "Suppose 10% of the jet fuel's energy affected the supporting beams..."

[st4nl3y]

I didnt see any mathematical or physical evidence or explanation.
Can you please stick to that instead of opinions, hearsay or whatever you think might be true?

So far i didnt see one poster archieving that.

For what, exactly?

 

You asked.  What specific phenomena do you want an explanation for?

Ah nvm my bad. I understood it wrong.

How about we start at the possible heat energy of jet fuel (kerosine) and stability of steel(frames)?

Still waiting for a scientific explaination with numbers and stuff 

Would be awesome if one side could deliver some facts.

I choose a target temperature of 600C as steel at that point has only some 40% of it's normal strength.
It's red hot, roughly.  From there it will get orange, then yellow, then white, then melt.

q = m x C x (Tf - Ti)

C= heat capacity for steel, 0.450 J/degree C
Tf= final temperature in Celcius
m=mass
q=specific heat, heat required to effect said change in T

q = 258.75 joules/gram iron to raise it's temperature to the point it's strength is only 40%

259 kj / kilogram



********

Energy content of Jet A kerosene - 42.8 Mj/kg. 

Conclusion.  One kilogram of jet fuel will move 165 kilograms of steel to a temperature at which it has only 40% of it's initial strength.

Note that all plastics and many other materials in office environments are petrochemical based, and really only represent "additional fuel."

Thank you. Looks pretty good for a start.

Do we have exact numbers of the amount of steel build in every floor?
Also a estimation of the additional heat energy through the other burnable elements?

With that we could make a estimation of how much energy was there and needed to make the steelframe unstable to the point of collapse.

Edit

I forgot we would also need the amount of jet fuel to do the estimation.

  Yes, I believe all those numbers are available.  BY the way I'm using a 40% strength factor because a lot of engineering overdesigns are 2.5x strength required when humans are closeby 2.5 --> 40%.  Simplifies things.

Basically it only needs to be shown for one floor, the pancaking is self perpetuating.

I'll look around and post that by tomorrow.  Like for a rough guess at something like this someone might say "Suppose 10% of the jet fuel's energy affected the supporting beams..."

You guys look so pathetic with your Mj/kg calculations and pancaking theories it's ridiculous! You can't deny facts whatever the outcome of your calculations will turn out to be. Skyscrapers just don't collapse because of fire of any kind, way shape or form. No fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse right down to it's footprints, pulverizing everything in to dust leaving pools of molten lava-like steel glowing hot for weeks after the collapse. It's fucking impossible in this scenario!

All of the three wtc buildings were demolished using explosives and you can clearly see that on any 9/11 footage, unless you're blind. Building 7 is clearly a smoking gun here, an obvious use of demolition. There wasn't even any fire there any more, it's so fucking crazy how obvious this is.   

[Spendulus]

....
You guys look so pathetic with your Mj/kg calculations and pancaking theories it's ridiculous! You can't deny facts whatever the outcome of your calculations will turn out to be. Skyscrapers just don't collapse because of fire of any kind, way shape or form. No fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse right down to it's footprints, pulverizing everything in to dust leaving pools of molten lava-like steel glowing hot for weeks after the collapse. It's fucking impossible in this scenario!

All of the three wtc buildings were demolished using explosives and you can clearly see that on any 9/11 footage, unless you're blind. Building 7 is clearly a smoking gun here, an obvious use of demolition. There wasn't even any fire there any more, it's so fucking crazy how obvious this is.   

You sound pretty sure about all that.

Mj/kg are not exactly pathetic calculations, that's what we send rockets to the Moon with.

Please explain this statement a bit.

Skyscrapers just don't collapse because of fire of any kind, way shape or form.

I'm curious how you come up with that.  In other words, if we show there was sufficient energy in the jet fuel to bring the building down, that's what it is.

And no fire in 7?  Who told you that?

[st4nl3y]

....
You guys look so pathetic with your Mj/kg calculations and pancaking theories it's ridiculous! You can't deny facts whatever the outcome of your calculations will turn out to be. Skyscrapers just don't collapse because of fire of any kind, way shape or form. No fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse right down to it's footprints, pulverizing everything in to dust leaving pools of molten lava-like steel glowing hot for weeks after the collapse. It's fucking impossible in this scenario!

All of the three wtc buildings were demolished using explosives and you can clearly see that on any 9/11 footage, unless you're blind. Building 7 is clearly a smoking gun here, an obvious use of demolition. There wasn't even any fire there any more, it's so fucking crazy how obvious this is.  

You sound pretty sure about all that.

Mj/kg are not exactly pathetic calculations, that's what we send rockets to the Moon with.

Please explain this statement a bit.

Skyscrapers just don't collapse because of fire of any kind, way shape or form.

I'm curious how you come up with that.  In other words, if we show there was sufficient energy in the jet fuel to bring the building down, that's what it is.

And no fire in 7?  Who told you that?

Because I am.

It may be but Mj/kg calculations are useless here. You cannot possibly prove those buildings collapsed because of fire. On the other hand, there is enough evidence out there to prove otherwise.  

Nothing to explain, it's just not possible for twin towers or building 7 to collapse because of fire, not in the way it did.

No, fire in building 7 almost burned out completely when it collapsed at 5:20pm. Look it up. It only suffered minor damage from falling debris.
Are you trying to say that 47 stories tall, steel-framed high-rise building collapsed in close to free-fall speed (6.5 seconds) because of limited office fires on few floors?? What do you think those building are made of, cardboard?  


this is how the wtc building 7 fire looked like. It collapsed in close to free-fall speed (6.5 seconds)




and this is how 44 stories tall Beijing TVCC building torched for 6 hours in 2009. It did NOT collapse

 
      

Some interesting facts about building 7:

-Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
-According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.
-It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.
-1,700+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7, specifying that it should include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives.
-Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the building’s owner Larry Silverstein.
-Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, financial institutions, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker”.

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations before 9/11, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds.

How curious that on 9/11, Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.

[Spendulus]

Because I am.

It may be but Mj/kg calculations are useless here. You cannot possibly prove those buildings collapsed because of fire. On the other hand, there is enough evidence out there to prove otherwise.  

Nothing to explain, it's just not possible for twin towers or building 7 to collapse because of fire, not in the way it did.

No, fire in building 7 almost burned out completely when it collapsed at 5:20pm. Look it up. It only suffered minor damage from falling debris.
Are you trying to say that 47 stories tall, steel-framed high-rise building collapsed in close to free-fall speed (6.5 seconds) because of limited office fires on few floors?? What do you think those building are made of, cardboard?  


this is how the wtc building 7 fire looked like. It collapsed in close to free-fall speed (6.5 seconds)




and this is how 44 stories tall Beijing TVCC building torched for 6 hours in 2009. It did NOT collapse

 
      

Some interesting facts about building 7:
.....<<deleted, I am sure every building has interesting facts>>

I am going to ignore most of the things you say that don't make sense.

Of course Giuliani would not have used bldg 7 on 911.  It was on fire, right?

It's really kind of weird that you would offer as supporting evidence TVCC.  According to the wikipedia entry -

The engineering firm for the building was Arup, East Asia,[7] who designed and built the TVCC after an extensive internal study of the World Trade Center building collapses on 11 September 200

So rather than supporting your assertion, it only proves that they learned from the mistakes in bldg 7.   

I am curious what you think it means for a building to "collapse in free fall speed," and also why you say "it's just not possible for twin towers or building 7 to collapse because of fire, not in the way it did."

Showing that the fire certainly can generate the heat required to soften the steel enough for the buildings to fall is exactly how to prove or disprove such an assertion.  Yet you would seem to argue that no science or engineering is necessary or useful.  This frankly seems very strange.

[arbitrage]

wish i could embed this, but cant... https://i.imgur.com/VUeFY1u.webm
 

He might thrown it from window for proving "we did"

No this is valid evidence, and this is why they had to connect Afghanistan with this "Terrorist attack".
 But majority of those faces from arrest warrant were from Saudi Arabia? Why US didn't attack Saudi Arabia?

[magnific61]

wish i could embed this, but cant... https://i.imgur.com/VUeFY1u.webm
 

He might thrown it from window for proving "we did"

No this is valid evidence, and this is why they had to connect Afghanistan with this "Terrorist attack".
 But majority of those faces from arrest warrant were from Saudi Arabia? Why US didn't attack Saudi Arabia?

Because Saudi Arabian oil was already in their hands.
Because they spent much money for Taleeban wins war between Russia and they needed to get back their expense by thousants times more

[arbitrage]

and this is how 44 stories tall Beijing TVCC building torched for 6 hours in 2009. It did NOT collapse

 
      
 I am going to ignore most of the things you say that don't make sense.
The engineering firm for the building was Arup, East Asia,[7] who designed and built the TVCC after an extensive internal study of the World Trade Center building collapses on 11 September 200

So rather than supporting your assertion, it only proves that they learned from the mistakes in bldg 7.  

I am curious what you think it means for a building to "collapse in free fall speed," and also why you say "it's just not possible for twin towers or building 7 to collapse because of fire, not in the way it did."

Showing that the fire certainly can generate the heat required to soften the steel enough for the buildings to fall is exactly how to prove or disprove such an assertion.  Yet you would seem to argue that no science or engineering is necessary or useful.  This frankly seems very strange.

We know what did we see buildings built to last over 100 years collapsing like they are from papers. I would believe in that, plane can crash building if he hit in lower levels , and can cause bulding loose its stability and then collapses.  Even if Kerosene melt iron bars, everything would stay on upper levels of building cannot collapse from its weight,  built to survive earthquakes!

[magnific61]

Eye witness' say that " it was a small plane" " it was like a small plane like i haven't seen before" " it was a missile"
Only 5 channels broadcasted that attack as live.  Cnn, Fox, Abc,  Cbc, Bbc broadcasted the attack together by 17 seconds delaying. Those media organs broadcasted you  2D animation videos.

[arbitrage]

Eye witness' say that " it was a small plane" " it was like a small plane like i haven't seen before" " it was a missile"
Only 5 channels broadcasted that attack as live.  Cnn, Fox, Abc,  Cbc, Bbc broadcasted the attack together by 17 seconds delaying. Those media organs broadcasted you  2D animation videos.

I believe this is edited in studio. Those videos are seen many times and they become a truth over time. So many believe they saw a plane, but maybe that was drone or something like this.
You can see differences when you looking from different angles, different videos.

[whizz94]

More than 15 years passed after 9/11 disaster.

I think that it is certain that this thread is inaccurate.

[Spendulus]

and this is how 44 stories tall Beijing TVCC building torched for 6 hours in 2009. It did NOT collapse

 
      
 I am going to ignore most of the things you say that don't make sense.
The engineering firm for the building was Arup, East Asia,[7] who designed and built the TVCC after an extensive internal study of the World Trade Center building collapses on 11 September 200

So rather than supporting your assertion, it only proves that they learned from the mistakes in bldg 7.  

I am curious what you think it means for a building to "collapse in free fall speed," and also why you say "it's just not possible for twin towers or building 7 to collapse because of fire, not in the way it did."

Showing that the fire certainly can generate the heat required to soften the steel enough for the buildings to fall is exactly how to prove or disprove such an assertion.  Yet you would seem to argue that no science or engineering is necessary or useful.  This frankly seems very strange.

We know what did we see buildings built to last over 100 years collapsing like they are from papers. I would believe in that, plane can crash building if he hit in lower levels , and can cause bulding loose its stability and then collapses. Even if Kerosene melt iron bars, everything would stay on upper levels of building cannot collapse from its weight,  built to survive earthquakes!

The support beams were smaller higher up, and got progressively thicker going down.  Their size and strength was calculated for the load they supported.  However, down low they would have beem much more massive, so the amount of fire or jet fuel to weaken them would have been higher.

Certainly, upper floors can collapse from their weight.  There is nothing else that can happen if the supporting beams are softened by fire to the point that the beams cannot support the weight.

This why we use engineering calculations to answer questions of this sort.  Opinions are not good enough - either to build such structures - or to guess at why they failed.  Do you have any rational objections to actual calculations of jet fuel heating up and softening steel, then?

[Spendulus]

Eye witness' say that " it was a small plane" " it was like a small plane like i haven't seen before" " it was a missile"
Only 5 channels broadcasted that attack as live.  Cnn, Fox, Abc,  Cbc, Bbc broadcasted the attack together by 17 seconds delaying. Those media organs broadcasted you  2D animation videos.

Bull.  Not what my relatives that live up there say they saw.  Sounds like stuff you just made up.  Won't work, dude. 

What kind of conspiracy involves five major networks making things up?  How many thousands of people would have to be involved and keep their mouths shut for that to happen?

So it's either all those thousands making things up, or .... you.

Which is it?

[st4nl3y]

I am going to ignore most of the things you say that don't make sense.

Of course Giuliani would not have used bldg 7 on 911.  It was on fire, right?

It's really kind of weird that you would offer as supporting evidence TVCC.  According to the wikipedia entry -

The engineering firm for the building was Arup, East Asia,[7] who designed and built the TVCC after an extensive internal study of the World Trade Center building collapses on 11 September 200

So rather than supporting your assertion, it only proves that they learned from the mistakes in bldg 7.   

I am curious what you think it means for a building to "collapse in free fall speed," and also why you say "it's just not possible for twin towers or building 7 to collapse because of fire, not in the way it did."

Showing that the fire certainly can generate the heat required to soften the steel enough for the buildings to fall is exactly how to prove or disprove such an assertion.  Yet you would seem to argue that no science or engineering is necessary or useful.  This frankly seems very strange.

Sure, keep ignoring facts and keep coming up with your nonsense excuses instead. I'm afraid it is you who don't make any sense.

Of course Giuliani would not have used bldg 7 on 911.  It was on fire, right?

Did you not read my post? Building 7 housed then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations before 9/11, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds.

Do you really think Giuliani would abandon his bunker created precisely for such an event because of some small limited office fires? The only reason why it was abandoned it's because they knew it is going to be demolished.

The engineering firm for the building was Arup, East Asia,[7] who designed and built the TVCC after an extensive internal study of the World Trade Center building collapses on 11 September 200

So rather than supporting your assertion, it only proves that they learned from the mistakes in bldg 7.

Except the fire in TVCC building happened in 2009, WTC buildings collapsed in 2011. Only thing it proves is that you are wrong, or is it wikipedia? 

I am curious what you think it means for a building to "collapse in free fall speed," and also why you say "it's just not possible for twin towers or building 7 to collapse because of fire, not in the way it did."

Again, you are not reading my posts. Building 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, 47 stories tall steel-structured building collapsing in 6.5 seconds!! That means there was absolutely no resistance from lower floors when the building was coming down. 47 stories in 6.5 seconds equals close to free-fall speed! You following? Hard to believe eh?
Instead of doing your bullshit Mj/kg calculations do something useful and go find 47 stories tall building somewhere, climb up on the roof and drop an apple then measure how many seconds it takes for the apple to hit the ground. Then you will maybe understand what I meant by "building collapsing in close to free-fall speed"
 

[criptix]

^

So 9/11 stands for september 2011? XD

Oh god you crazy people should check your mental health....

Just stop now because you dont even fucking know when 9/11 happened.