Skip to main content
Topic: 9/11 Debate (Read 3031 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from CV and mad panic beha...
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #15
As part of basic bushfire research, CSIRO did extensive testing of various building materials, and found steel and some metals although less likely to catch would also suffer the most catastrophic failures at lower temperatures or from being heated to high temperatures. The structural members buckle and fold like a melted straw once they get above a critical temperature.

The longest survived structures in bush fires are solid log constructions, because although they burn the timber chars on the outside but doesn't become structurally weaker in the process lasting much longer before failure. Sort of makes sense when you see the charred forests after regional fires. For this reason they are now developing new building codes that may permit construction up to 10 stories structurally built out of wood.

It's probably fair to say the Twin Towers must have been exposed to some extreme heat, they were basically 100 story chimneys. I think CSIRO and other local scientists debugged the 9/11 conspiracies very well a long time back on The Conversation website, you might still be able to find that information.

There will always be alternate opinions, some because they just refuse to accept what they think is right is wrong, others because they have some external motive affecting their judgement, others because they want there to be a conspiracy.
All that is debunked lp.

I watched 20minutes of what was posted before. ive seen others talking about it too.

No skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire.....ever......anywhere. 3 happened on the same day.

Jet fuel can't burn hot enough to get to the heat required for the type of failure seen.

Even still, all beams and columns are fire rated to withstand fire and heat for 2-3 hours. They were completely down in an hour.

They fell at free fall.

Clearly if this was the perfect storm of a freak accident and a 1 in a trillion event, you'd want to look at evidence.....but that was shipped off immediately to China and destroyed. Maybe it wasn't a freak accident and maybe they didn't want to look at the evidence.

Fwiw, military grade thermite was found in an a nearby apartment where it was analysed in a lab.

The way some beams were sheared/cut is not consistent with a fall but rather....yep....thermite and controlled demolition.


Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #16
All that is debunked lp.
Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in something like concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.
The Force Awakens!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #17
Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering...
Apparently YOU can.

Listen to the people who designed them, architects and engineers. THEY are the ones who have done the research.

Stop arguing about something you havn't seen.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #18
Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.

The steels beams/supports of the WTC were painted with a special fire / heat retardant (forget the name) making them almost 4 times more resistant for fire / heat.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #19
Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.

Yeah right.
80 plus floors were not even impacted by the plane.....

That's really poor for a scientist.

By the by, even the NIST report concurs that a minimum 90% of the fuel load was expended outside the building ie in the explosion during impact.

What energy source then brought the building down in next to free fall speed?

Heard of the law of conservation of momentum?

That's not even addressing the symmetry of descent, the vapour point of jet fuel and the melting temperature of treated steel......
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #20
Yeah right.
80 plus floors were not even impacted by the plane.....

That's really poor for a scientist.

By the by, even the NIST report concurs that a minimum 90% of the fuel load was expended outside the building ie in the explosion during impact.

What energy source then brought the building down in next to free fall speed?

Heard of the law of conservation of momentum?

That's not even addressing the symmetry of descent, the vapour point of jet fuel and the melting temperature of treated steel......
The NIST report has so many errors in it that are 'tweaked to try and cover up what really happened. Even if there was no tweaking..it still has so many errors.

@lp
You reckon its been debunked,  show me your evidence. I'll point out the inaccuracies in it for you.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #21
The NIST report has so many errors in it that are 'tweaked to try and cover up what really happened. Even if there was no tweaking..it still has so many errors.

@lp
You reckon its been debunked,  show me your evidence. I'll point out the inaccuracies in it for you.
Nah, not going over that ground again, the myths persist longer than the facts.

We all know fairy-tales from 400 years ago, will take some to our grave with great accuracy, but finding out facts about real world events is almost impossible because the vast bulk of what we read is painted by opinion not data. Humanity is far to too fallible.

The stuff isn't meant to last, it's built to a price, we can't even assume the metallurgy in those towers was the same as the day they were built. We know now just a trace element in that steel can form an irreparable defect over time, just like the Westgate Bridge, similar vintage. And no modern building built today can withstand a large fraction of it collapsing down on itself, not one. The pyramids have lasted a thousand years pretty much untouched externally, there is hardly a skyscraper built today that would survive 100 without regular maintenance, just like our bridges which are constructed to an even tighter standards than a building.
The Force Awakens!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #22
Apparently YOU can.

Listen to the people who designed them, architects and engineers. THEY are the ones who have done the research.

Stop arguing about something you havn't seen.
So it's all black and white for you then? :o

All I can comment on is what specialists and scientists have reported, I'm not an engineer and won't pretend to be one from my armchair, neither are most architects they employ engineers to do the math for them.

The universal consensus doesn't really exist amongst the experts as some would like to think, but you can get that perception by choosing who to believe or cherry-picking the data.
The Force Awakens!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #23
So you say it's a conspiracy and there is proof.

I ask for evidence because I want to read it and you say no.

I on the other hand,  with others, says it's bs and here is why....and you refuse to entertain the idea.

You can lead a horse to water...

I'll get the screen and the shotgun...

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #24
So you say it's a conspiracy and there is proof.
I didn't say there was a conspiracy, I said there were various hypothesis.

Come back when your less grumpy and more likely to post sensibly.
The Force Awakens!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #25
So it's all black and white for you then? :o

All I can comment on is what specialists and scientists have reported, I'm not an engineer and won't pretend to be one from my armchair, neither are most architects they employ engineers to do the math for them.

The universal consensus doesn't really exist amongst the experts as some would like to think.

Both architects and engineers are in agreeance as was clearly stated in the post you quoted suggesting otherwise.

You COULD comment on the link... but you won't. Got a touch of the fonzies have you and mav.

I'm trying to learn what the other side thinks...and am getting nothing back.

I'll give air time to any competing theories and am happy to educate myself on such matters.
I once watched a flat earth doco to see what logic they used. Best comedy I've seen in ages.



Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #26
I didn't say there was a conspiracy, I said there were various hypothesis.

Come back when your less grumpy and more likely to post sensibly.
Yes there are....and the one trotted out to the public is completely wrong.

....and I havnet even started on the non twin towers inaccuracies....

And I'm completely well fine thanks for caring. :D

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #27
Yes there are....and the one trotted out to the public is completely wrong.

....and I havnet even started on the non twin towers inaccuracies....

And I'm completely well fine thanks for caring. :D
I generally don't offer the conspiracies trotted out by think tanks, I won't offer "evidence or opinion" from such entities, because much of it is worthless or selectively distorted.

I prefer to discuss the un-doctored reports posted by authorities through authorised channels and verified by collegiate entities like universities or research organisations. If Cambridge, Oxford, CSIRO or Harvard come out as an entity and state these people are onto something, I'll take notice.

And I apply the same applies for COVID-19 disease or vaccine, I don't change tactic dependant on the subject matter or personal preference!
The Force Awakens!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #28
I prefer to discuss the un-doctored reports posted by authorities through authorised channels and verified by collegiate entities like universities or research organisations

....

And I apply the same applies for COVID-19 disease or vaccine, I don't change tactic dependant on the subject matter or personal preference!
If you find one, let me know.

The videos show that the report used was presented 2 days after the incident.
Full and thorough you reckon?

I don't change tact either. I question things and don't believe what the government says because the government said it.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #29
The videos show that the report used was presented 2 days after the incident.
Full and thorough you reckon?

I don't change tact either. I question things and don't believe what the government says because the government said it.
Is CSIRO government? That's news to a lot of the leftish researchers working there, funded partially by Federal government no doubt, partially by State government too, and partially by private enterprise or foundations, but that is only partial funding of course! It will be hard to find one that speaks kindly of the government, any government for that matter, and good luck silencing or distorting their research for political or social engineering purposes and expecting them to stay quiet! :o

I'm not commenting on the validity of the reports linked by yourself or others in earlier posts, as I mentioned I don't comment on Think Tank type reports or statements from interest groups as they are often politically or socially coloured.

I've made a general post discussing reports from seriously qualified individuals and organisations about scientific and engineering testing that just happens to coincidentally be very relevant to the specific 911 case. In general the CSIRO commentary was about how buildings fail under fire conditions, all types of building and all types of fire including combustible explosions. These studies often expose rules of physics or materials that can be universally applied, not just applied selectively in a very choice set of circumstances, but general global findings. Usually, such global findings occur in every instance, usually but not always. These specialists from all around the globe would be all over any systemic false reporting, followed by the mainstream and political media, but all you are hearing is crickets. It's a significant tell!
The Force Awakens!