9-11 conspiracy theories.. Osama innocent?

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

i'd like someone to argue against this now.

thanks for mentioning this Seyorni.

Regardless of whether or not Osama was directly responsible for 9/11 makes no difference. He might have been innocent in relation to 9/11, but he was still a man guilty of other things, which means he was not an innocent man as you claim.

 

[idea]

- the temperature (i.e. an actual value) indicated by the damage to the steel.
- the maximum temperature (i.e. an actual value) that an office fire can produce.

Could you give us both of these numbers, please?

typical steel alloys melt at 1538°C - google it... this is why the iron age came so much later than the copper/bronze ages, because in order to create iron you have to be able to attain very high temps - temps that you do not get in your backyard campfire, so it took mankind quite a bit of time before they reached the iron age.

jet fuel burns at 287°C
Jet fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

287 is obviously quite a bit lower than 1538...

when you find steel beams that have been melted through...

these buildings are designed with alloys that can easily withstand fires...


9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires
"
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours....

just a random google...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.php
"A thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures (>2500° C) and provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings."



Cognitive dissonance ... I know, I experienced it myself while watching this stuff

well... I don't have to feel bad... I didn't start the fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

 

[Revoltingest]

typical steel alloys melt at 1538°C - google it... this is why the iron age came so much later than the copper/bronze ages, because in order to create iron you have to be able to attain very high temps - temps that you do not get in your backyard campfire, so it took mankind quite a bit of time before they reached the iron age.
jet fuel burns at 287°C
Jet fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
287 is obviously quite a bit lower than 1538...

Jet fuel is pretty similar to kerosene, which I've used in blow torches to heat steel to red hot temperatures....far above the point at which steel creeps under stress.
Something is really amiss with the Wikipedia figure for open air burning temperature. If you're going to claim that it was a naptha type jet fuel, naptha also burns
at higher temperatures. Common structural steels begin losing strength at about 300C, well below the burning temperatures of all jet fuels.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...es/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

when you find steel beams that have been melted through...
these buildings are designed with alloys that can easily withstand fires...

Hi-temp alloys weren't used in those or any buildings. Insulation is a much more cost effective approach than Inconel or other such fancy hi-temp materials.
You're welcome to present which alloys you say were used & compare their properties to garden variety 1018, 1020 or HSLA steels.

9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires
"Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

[SIZE=-1]The One Meridian Plaza fire [/SIZE]
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours....

just a random google...
9-11 Thermite and the WTC Collapses | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
"A thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures (>2500° C) and provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings."
Cognitive dissonance ... I know, I experienced it myself while watching this stuff

Your fire comparisons don't deal with structural differences between the buildings.

 

[idea]

Jet fuel is pretty similar to kerosene, which I've used in blow torches to heat steel to red hot temperatures....far above the point at which steel creeps under stress.

the steel did not slowly creep - it melted... the failure happened too fast to be explained by creep...

it was at least 3000° in there - can you melt concrete with a blow torch?
9-11: DISPLAY OF POLICE GUNS FOUND WITH MELTED CONCRETE IN THE RUINS OF THE WTC

 

[Revoltingest]

the steel did not slowly creep - it melted... the failure happened too fast to be explained by creep...
it was at least 3000° in there - can you melt concrete with a blow torch?
9-11: DISPLAY OF POLICE GUNS FOUND WITH MELTED CONCRETE IN THE RUINS OF THE WTC

Almost all of steel's strength is lost below the melting point. So structural failure would occur before melting.
Concrete doesn't melt. It does break down endothermically to protect the steel.
Fireproofing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But this protection is of limited duration, & will fail as the concrete spalls & exposes the steel to open flames.
Btw, blow torches aren't needed to achieve red heat....I've personally seen open containers of heating oil make
steel red hot, which is more than hot enuf to destroy the concrete & reduce steel to silly putty.
But the lower level floors failed by impact induced stress of falling upper floors. The floor to post connections
lack kinetic energy absorbing capability, so the cascade failure was very rapid.

 

[idea]

the cascade failure was very rapid.

very rapid indeed... a little too rapid...

but I hope you are right... both sides have valid arguments, I'm not sure that either side will ever be "proven"... so prepare for the worst, but hope for the best? I don't know what happened, but I don't want to live in fear, so I guess I'll just have to have a little faith

 

[Revoltingest]

very rapid indeed... a little too rapid...

but I hope you are right... both sides have valid arguments, I'm not sure that either side will ever be "proven"... so prepare for the worst, but hope for the best? I don't know what happened, but I don't want to live in fear, so I guess I'll just have to have a little faith

Faith is useless in failure analysis.
Every argument I've seen for explosive demolition is riddled with improbabilities, impossibilities & pseudo-science.
I'd be happy to blame the fed gov if that looked valid, but the simplest explanation is that someone flew planes into the
buildings, & they weren't resistant to this type of assault.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

typical steel alloys melt at 1538°C - google it... this is why the iron age came so much later than the copper/bronze ages, because in order to create iron you have to be able to attain very high temps - temps that you do not get in your backyard campfire, so it took mankind quite a bit of time before they reached the iron age.

Try google yourself: look up "eutectoid tempterature". If you can't figure out what it means, let me know and I can explain it to you.

jet fuel burns at 287°C
Jet fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

287 is obviously quite a bit lower than 1538...

Do you understand how combustion works? Read more closely: it burns at 287 degrees in open air.

There is no single magic temperature at which a fire burns. Combustion is an exothermic reaction. When something burns, it puts out heat. The temperature that results depends on the environment around the fire.

When that article says "287 degrees in open air", this means that when all the heat is radiated away, the flame will settle out at 287 degrees. If you burn jet fuel not in open air but in an environment where the heat is reflected back in toward the fire - for instance, inside a building with walls, a floor and a ceiling - the temperature will continue to increase and increase as long as it's has a supply of fuel and air.

when you find steel beams that have been melted through...

these buildings are designed with alloys that can easily withstand fires...

What alloy? Tell me - be specific. If you're going to claim that the World Trade Centre was built with some special alloy and not just plain ol' carbon steel, I'm sure you could at least specify which alloy it was.

9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires
"
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.

So? Collapse of a high-rise building is an exceedingly rare event. Any cause of collapse of a high-rise is going to be unusual.

But if this is your measure of plausibility, then answer me this: excepting the three 9-11 collapses, how many steel-framed high-rise building collapses have been caused by phantom detonation charges that nobody notices?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the steel did not slowly creep - it melted... the failure happened too fast to be explained by creep...

I thought you wanted this thread to stick to "peer reviewed articles and actual experimental findings"; why are you posting this baseless crap?

And yes, the structural failure was sudden. The direct cause of this failure wasn't creep itself, it was the failure of the pin connections on the ends of the floor trusses.

However, the cause of the failure of the pin connections was the increase in stress on the pins, which was caused by the change in the geometry of the connection due to the sag of the beams.

 

[Revoltingest]

In concur with the greenish funny shaped mostly penguin.

 

[idea]

Collapse of a high-rise building is an exceedingly rare event.

agree - exceedingly rare... even more rare to have three fail in the same way (only two of which were hit by planes) within a few hours of one another ... what are the odds?

but again, I hope you are right!

 

[Revoltingest]

agree - exceedingly rare... even more rare to have three fail in the same way (only two of which were hit by planes) within a few hours of one another ... what are the odds?

Calculating the odds is pretty meaningless for rare events, such as airplanes hitting skyscrapers.
It makes more sense to look at documentation for what happened, & then formulate likely theories.
It's also possible that aliens teleported bombs into the buildings to coincide with the plane crashes.
But is that likely? Is it detectable? Unlikelihood & lack of evidence lead me to discard that scenario.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

agree - exceedingly rare... even more rare to have three fail in the same way (only two of which were hit by planes) within a few hours of one another ... what are the odds?

but again, I hope you are right!

Are you going to respond to any of my other points?

You've made specific claims; it's up to you to defend them and support them with evidence.