Galileo/Newton agree-- 9/11 was an inside job!

[nutnspecial]

Excellent points in a row Etrike!
and yes, he (punxor) seems to be obliviously missing my/your intention/meaning, or purposefully choosing to.

Either way, I understand his viewpoints pretty well. I once had them as well.

They have now evolved, and I am willing to continue to evolve my beliefs about physics, science, politics, religion, life, etc, as they are naturally evolving too, and will for the forseeable future.

No worries punxor. Our perceptions are what make us who we are, and may be the only thing that ever matters- so cherish your perception as I cherish mine, and let's keep evolving.

Here's to seeing the glass full, instead of half full, or half empty!

 

[Punx0r]

I dont know, if NIS lied about Molten Metal, why trust anything they say. Multiple eye-witnesses saw molten metal.

The only reference I can find to this is accusations by conspiracy theorists relating to a youtube video that included John Gross being button-holed. If that video is all there is then there is no basis on which to make an accusation of lying. Lying is a deliberate attempt to deceive. It does not include incorrect statements resulting from incompetence, confusion or a lack of clarity about what is being discussed. The video also includes no actual evidence of whether molten steel was or was present at some point in the rubble pile. As previously stated, though, it does contain a large number of basic errors in trying to prove its point.

nutspecial, you imply you were once practitioner of the scientific method - please return to this path.

eTrike, I will have to come back to your posts when I have time to review those videos and write yet another point-by-point refutation. I wish you wouldn't keep restating the same points that have already been refuted. Attempting "proof by assertion" is yet another logical fallacy.

 

[nutnspecial]

Yeah, cuz science never gets disproved or outdated/improved :lol:
Same with every other aspect of our understanding. Personal or mass.





Lets move forward, not backward!

 

[Punx0r]

Yeah, cuz science never gets disproved or outdated/improved :lol:

Ah, the "science was wrong before!" fallacy, used to try to justify, well, just about anything. If ten years ago I asked you the time, and you were off by a minute, that means I can reject absolutely anything you ever say ever again?

Anyway, I wasn't advocating a specific scientific theory (which are open to refutation) but the *scientific method* which has never been shown to be flawed. For what it's worth, blood-letting is an example of the quackery that was eliminated by the development of the scientific method. As for flat-earth, it's been known by the people who closest resembled the modern concept of scientists for over two thousand years. Although, again, this predates the scientific method.

eTrike, do you have ANY sources that aren't a youtube video consisting of news cuttings or someone standing in front of a Powerpoint screen for two hours? You know, maybe something that looks vaguely like actual reference material?

 

[arkmundi]

... in a reputable peer-reviewed journal...

 

[marty]

3 buildings caught on fire and fell down. That it that's all. To understand how this happened you need to have a understanding of FIRE. Stop watching YouTube videos. Stop doing math problems. Go light a fire. Not the little fire from your lighters that you use to smoke paranoia causing weeds. Go light a big building on fire and watch what happens.

To understand what happens in a real fire in the real world I will show you my dinosaur.
View attachment 2


How did this dinosaur come about? Picture a auto repair shop in Western New York, USA. Building had a fire. I never saw the building before or after the fire. I was hired to do the final clean up. All there was was a big concrete slab with burnt stuff on it. Job involved brooms, shovels, garbage cans, and a dumpster full of debris, mostly ashes. In the trash, I found the dinosaur. I assume it was a aluminum tool or possibly a auto part that melted in the fire.

I have great respect for firemen. Dangerous and difficult job.

 

[Arlo1]

3 buildings caught on fire and fell down. That it that's all. To understand how this happened you need to have a understanding of FIRE. Stop watching YouTube videos. Stop doing math problems. Go light a fire. Not the little fire from your lighters that you use to smoke paranoia causing weeds. Go light a big building on fire and watch what happens.

To understand what happens in a real fire in the real world I will show you my dinosaur.
View attachment 2
View attachment 1

How did this dinosaur come about? Picture a auto repair shop in Western New York, USA. Building had a fire. I never saw the building before or after the fire. I was hired to do the final clean up. All there was was a big concrete slab with burnt stuff on it. Job involved brooms, shovels, garbage cans, and a dumpster full of debris, mostly ashes. In the trash, I found the dinosaur. I assume it was a aluminum tool or possibly a auto part that melted in the fire.

I have great respect for firemen. Dangerous and difficult job.

The pictures you show are aluminum which melts at a much lower temperature then steal. You can melt aluminum in a camp fire but you can not melt steal in a camp fire. The buildings fell with in something like 30 minutes and the bottom floors collapsed first after loud explosions many witnesses reported and video has shown. You can't tell me the jet fuel got to the bottom floor then ignited and burnt hot enough to melt steal (with lack of 02) in the bottom floor then made loud explosions then the bottom floors started collapsing first!

 

[nutnspecial]

Ah, the "science was wrong before!" fallacy, used to try to justify, well, just about anything. If ten years ago I asked you the time, and you were off by a minute, that means I can reject absolutely anything you ever say ever again?

You deserve a medal for the ability to miss a point!!!! Yaaayyyy Punxor!!!!!!

I can't offer any more, oh well, like I said. Peace
And be careful not to sail off the edge of the earth, with that half-full cup! :lol:


Also, Marty, there is recorded video and stats on several steel beamed high rises that have burned. They burned to a damn crisp, yet none of them toppled or fell so similarly to planned demolition.

A stray thought I've had is the memory of alot of those demolition shows popular on cable in the 90's. After seeing the towers fall, I have been hardpressed to find any at all. I personally think there is high probably it wasn't fire or thermite alone.
Where did all the rubble go? Paper and dust. Weird toasted cars. No evidence on the earthquake monitors that anything substansial even hit the ground that day.

We're all entitled to our opinions, cuz like I said, perception is potentially existence. But the info I find is more than weird, and it does back up my first impressions of astonishment when seeing them fall.

 

[r3volved]

The pictures you show are aluminum which melts at a much lower temperature then steal. You can melt aluminum in a camp fire but you can not melt steal in a camp fire. The buildings fell with in something like 30 minutes and the bottom floors collapsed first after loud explosions many witnesses reported and video has shown. You can't tell me the jet fuel got to the bottom floor then ignited and burnt hot enough to melt steal (with lack of 02) in the bottom floor then made loud explosions then the bottom floors started collapsing first!

Do you know what happens when liquid aluminum contacts liquid water? Say from a sprinkler or a fire hose?

Are you saying that his example is irrelevant because it's aluminum and there should not have been any aluminum in the collapse?

I'm not sure why you wouldn't expect molten metals to be found on bottom floors...would you expect to find it on the top floor instead?

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf (unfortunately this is from a 911 related website)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=A9jFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1067&lpg=PA1067&dq=P.D.+Hess+and+K.J.+Brondyke&source=bl&ots=KpeRpVDlmf&sig=NvFHpzpUWiMqVc4cthjwZKblDu0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAmoVChMIt770x4PMxgIVln-SCh2gsg5q#v=onepage&q=P.D.%20Hess%20and%20K.J.%20Brondyke&f=false (fortunately this is NOT from a 911 site and originally published in April 1969)

 

[r3volved]

so you're saying that there should not have been any molten aluminum?

http://www.quora.com/What-materials-are-planes-typically-made-of-and-why

 

[markz]

Very interesesting on the 3rd tower. It was never hit by a plane, which makes me wonder.....a little bit anyway.
I have a casual occasional interest, but really not that interested.
It does look like your idea is correct, controlled demolition.
Office fire due to combustible material inside, doesnt do that to a building. Just looking at the video, how the building twists, and the verticle fractures looks like demo to me.

Didnt that entire area have a huge underground cavity for their transit system and stuff?

 

[Arlo1]

so you're saying that there should not have been any molten aluminum?

http://www.quora.com/What-materials-are-planes-typically-made-of-and-why

No we are saying they found molten Steal and that is what doesn't make sense. Steal does not burn from jet fuel.
Steal will not weaken in a few minutes from an office fire in tower 7 the third building to collapse that day which was not hit by anything other then a piece of debris there is NO WAY IN HELL building 7 should have fallen from a simple office fire!

We are disputing why there is molten steal found in and why the steal structure is able to collapse so fast when jet fuel can't even cause that!

We are not saying anything about aluminum just saying the molten STEAL found and the fact the frames made from it collapsed is BULL SHIT and that was not caused by jet fuel!

 

[Punx0r]

I despair. May science have mercy on your intellectual souls.

this was never meant to be a debate thread, it was meant to be informative.

You have a mind like a steel trap. It's just a shame it's rusted shut.

 

[markz]

You have a mind like a steel trap. It's just a shame it's rusted shut.

Ouch!!!!

What about the asbestos material coating the steel structure?
It would have been blown off.

How long did the towers burn before they fell? A few hours? What does Jet Fuel burn at? Whats the melting point of steel?
If its a controlled demo, there would be no molten steel, correct?

WTC 7 is a mystery to me. Or whatever the 3rd, unmentionable tower was. What did that tower have in terms of occupants? CIA, FBI, ATF?

 

[liveforphysics]

How long did the towers burn before they fell? A few hours? What does Jet Fuel burn at? Whats the melting point of steel?
If its a controlled demo, there would be no molten steel, correct?

That's correct, jet fuel can't make molten steel burning in atmospheric conditions. This is regardless of the amount of jet fuel.

WTC 7 is a mystery to me. Or whatever the 3rd, unmentionable tower was. What did that tower have in terms of occupants? CIA, FBI, ATF?

I can tell you what WTC7 didn't have it in was the building owner and his family, who a couple of weeks before the "attack" took out a special insurance policy specifically for "acts of terrorism" (AKA, the US Government military industrial complex struggling to create reasons to justify its existence.)

If you apply Occam razor, you can see who has motive, means, and incentive. It explains why the NIST report is filled with obvious and critical errata a slow high-schooler can catch. They also have a well documented approved contingency plan for starting wars that includes similarly horrific atrocities being committed to there own citizens dating over half a century back.

The US government is a military industrial corporatism. They need to actively create boogeymen to maintain the illusion the military does more than parasitically bleed out a countries resources and citizens blood into the sand in the name of corporate shareholder profits.

 

[dequinox]

This is just a rough informative post... disclaimer: I haven't read this whole thread.

One measure of the strength (actually, the "stiffness") of metals is Young's Modulus. This figure gives a measure of the amount an object will compress or stretch under load. This is a material property and is subject to change when the temperature of the material changes. See the chart below:

Source: Engineering Toolbox

As you can see, as the material temperature increases, the stiffness (resistance to deflection under load) decreases. Basically the strength of steel sinks.

As we can see below, in the max deflection column of a simple end-loaded beam problem, δ=ML^2/2EI (δ is max deflection, M is the moment load, L is the length, E is Young's modulus, and I is the area moment of inertia). If Young's modulus gets smaller, the δ number gets bigger, which means the beam bends more under the same load. Since increasing temp causes Young's modulus to drop, we know that steel is going to bend more under the same load at higher temperatures.

My point here is that it's not a matter of "steel is as strong as it is until it melts" as so many posts seem to suggest. This is a matter of "steel loses strength as temperature increases". So the jet fuel, no matter what the burning temperature is, it had to have weakened the steel in the trade center towers a bit. It seems jet fuel burns at up to 1500 degrees, which means the Young's modulus was cut nearly in 1/2 with the jet fuel burning next to the beams. ...and the deflection equation only holds true up to certain stress levels... once you get beyond the elastic limit of the steel it behaves more like string cheese than a board. It stretches and bends permanently... and under all that weight eventually collapses from the looks of things. Once things start collapsing you get impact loading on the way down, which I personally believe would be enough for the building to tear itself apart.

That said: it isn't my personal belief that events during September 11, 2001 necessarily went down in the way the government tells us it did. I'm not going to elaborate on my opinion more than that, but I just wanted to put it out there that a lot of people think about the jet fuel/steel melting problem wrong.

Also, in a controlled demo, explosives can indeed burn (albeit quickly) hot enough to melt steel. This might explain the presence of some slag... but the other thing that might explain it would be the use of thermite packs. The thermite reaction (Fe2O3 (s) + 2 Al (s) → Al2O3 (s) + 2 Fe (s)) would have totally melted any steel around it. Just sayin' it's a possible tool that could have been used in the conspiracy version of these events.

 

[liveforphysics]

Humans were alive and running out of the building still when it fell.

If the structural steel composing the lower 50% of the building was so hot it was impacting it's strength, the humans wouldn't be running out, they would be vaporizing into ashes. Yet, the building falls as though there was no steel structure at all.

 

[neptronix]

Yeah, it is pretty unlikely that at hundreds of degrees fahrenheit, any human being could do anything other than melt/burn/vaporize. If the fire had gradually risen to that point, they would have jumped out way earlier.

If something would have exploded and created all that heat in a very short period of time, i can see how you'd manage to leap out or whatnot though.

One little piece of airplane with some jet fuel in it plus a bunch of office furniture, computers, etc do not combine to create temps like that inside an entire building.

The building would have at least bent/warped before falling straight down if some sort of fuel was working on heating the metal up for a long period of time. One area where this supposed jet fuel was burning would be affecting one part of the building more than the other. It would not fall straight down.

Take a lighter and light a piece of paper. Does the entire piece of paper reach the same temperature, or does the ignited fuel burn where the flame is touching the paper, first?

 

[zombiess]

The us govt, an entity proven to be incapable of doing just about anything correctly or efficiently; manages to pull of an extremely complicated, amazingly detailed plan with co conspirators at every level. A plan so complex with so many unpredictable outcomes due to the involvement of so many personalities, all of whom must despise the USA and its citizens, but includes many of its own citizens.

The above acts being done to instate a war for corporate profiteering and natural resources then fails to follow through and literally own the countries with these natural resources worth more than what the wars and economic fall out from the planned insanely complicated attack. USA govt might be quite incompetent, but even they are not that bad.

You will not hear me say that the us govt isn't for the corps by the corps for the last 20 years but this conspiracy stuff is tinfoil hat wearing certifiable Looney..

Just remember that even great physicists minds such as Richard Feynman were unable to figure out the relatively easy reason behind the way uncooked spaghetti breaks.

Keep arguing over the rate of fall of a cascading failure event that is more complex than a human can fathom.

Nature always has the last laugh.

 

[nutnspecial]

For those that don't think the gov is capable: you may be misunderstanding the gov.

it's just people like you and me, set up in a pyramid like structure of decompartmentalization. It allows for top down easy subversiveness, for private or hidden entities to pull strings in high up places. Higher than any 'office' held in politics quite possibly.
(look at CFR, builderberger group, and fed reserve for examples of secretive multinational groups involving higher ups in the gov. the insiders)
Gov appears inept to the layman because that's the design, in terms of all the political back and forth bs we hear. Think about it, nearly the entire media is controlled by the same/similar multinational 'elite' corporate entities.
They leave us to our 'own devices' on the lower part of the pyramid, and even most likely actively seek to instigate DIVISION, consfusion, disillusionment.

its not that the gov acted as a whole evil entity, with this structure all it takes is a few people. The rest are just unknowing pawns. Take norad and airforce for instance. For some reason they were all busy running drills that morning- look into that. They thought the plane into the tower was part of the drill!- pretty convenient for the real 'doers' i must say.

The towers turned to dust in a spectacular fashion. With the level that PUBLIC science has reached- I think it's possible some type of new tech was used, whether by subversive elements within or in control of facets of our own gov, or from elseware.

Imo though, there is too much evidence not to entertain and even highly consider:

INSIDE JOB. PLANES AND FIRE DIDN"T BRING THE BUILDINGS DOWN ON THEIR OWN.

IMO the best anti-popular ideas and approach that's 911-specific
judy woods bs ms phd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqbcsU0_RjU

'Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor at Clemson University, USA, with degrees in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Materials Engineering Science, will present rarely seen graphic evidence which proves what really happened to those enormous structures. Her detailed scientific study exposes a challenging conclusion which most people have never had a chance to see, hear and evaluate. Dr Wood is the only person to submit elements of her forensic study in a US Federal court case in 2007, news of which was censored.'

One of the more interesting things I've not heard mentioned or looked at anywhere else, is that the 50000 tons (or whatever it was) of building make no noticable impact on the ground/seismegraphs, when even normal building demolitions are recordable?

 

[zombiess]

Here's to seeing the glass full, instead of half full, or half empty!

View attachment 1

The glass is twice as large as it needs to be.

 

[nutnspecial]

Nice. Although is that playing by the rules?
With the glass full of liquid, there wouldn't be a 'problem' and would take away the classic argument.

I prefer to allow the two original contradictory views to exist, and look for the best answer that is all inclusive- not saying anyone is wrong, just finding a better answer. More real world for us to think about.


Although, in the highest level of philosophy, the amount we actually know and understand could be similar to your proposition. We may know so very little, that we're not even trying to solve the right problem.
If we know 1%, 20%, 99% of something infinite, we still know nothing, just from the literal understanding of the statement.

There are no percentages of infinity lol.

 

[zombiess]

There are no percentages of infinity lol.

Yes, there are percentages of infinity, it just alters the "acceleration" vector w.r.t. other forms of infinity. You should also define your limits as your statement is not valid since it includes zero. A percentage of zero is not defined so your statement collapses into an invalid argument due to being an indeterminate form.

If we know 1%, 20%, 99% of something infinite, we still know nothing, just from the literal understanding of the statement.

The is a completely invalid statement as it is an indeterminate form (again).

Technically there is no such thing as "empty space" because it is not empty. The theory of Quantum Chromodynamics says that even in a perfect vacuum quantum fields still exist, quarks pop into an out of existence as they hop along until meeting other quarks or anti-quarks and form Mesons. It takes too much energy to form a true empty space and cancel out these fields which is why there is no such thing as "empty space". At least not in a Quantum Vacuum.

What does all this have to do with this topic? "It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer" and "A plurality is not to be posited without necessity". This off topic post is talking about physics just like rest of this thread. We seem more concerned about arguing the number of teeth in the alligators mouth that just ate a kid vs how the kid came in contact with the alligator in the first place.

 

[nutnspecial]

Just a response with my philosophical take. On the variable views of the cups thing. Just trying to be playful.

Yes, there are percentages of infinity,

That could be a fun topic. I don't see how that fits with my understandy of infinite, and actually completely contradicts it's meaning imo.

As far as the topic, I think my response after your original post is spot on. It's a take I find certainly possible, if not plausible on the events and what could have and likely transpire 'behind the scenes". my take on insight to 'inside job'.

 

[nicobie]

While I tend to agree with zombiess about the 9-11 conspiracy theory, and totally agree with his opinion that the Govmt doesn't have the collective smarts to pull off something even 10% as complicated, I also 100% agree with Luke:


"The US government is a military industrial corporatism. They need to actively create boogeymen to maintain the illusion the military does more than parasitically bleed out a countries resources and citizens blood into the sand in the name of corporate shareholder profits."