19 crazy stripper lovin fanatics couldn't imagine they would do this

This is six weeks after the building fell to the ground. Six weeks after a pile of rubble insulated the heat produced when the buildings collapsed. Do you know what the odds are that the insulated heat would be above the temperature of burning jet fuel and burning debris? Ziltch/Non/Zero/Nope/Ain't going to fucking happen. Do you see the dripping metal? Are you going to remain a nut controlled by what is only acknowledged to be true by the networks? They don't report the truth they frame it into oblivian wake-up.

The only energy this debris recieved was when it fell from where it was in the building yet the entire pile was like this. Keep believing the frames and keep selling out the truth and your country.

19 stripper lovin muslims did not raise the internal temperature of that pile to over 1800 degrees and keep it there for more than six weeks.

Jet fuel will not cannot burn 6 weeks after it is all burned up. You 'official story' people need a really big wake the fuck up enema and then a good slap for stupidity. Yes I said you are fucking too incompetent if you don't get this point to comment on it. Heat doesn't just show up on it's own, it also has to be forced into what ever recieves it by higher temperatures. These facts make the 'official fairy tale' plain as the nose on my face bullshit.

Let's put it this way two objects of different temperatures one hot and one cold are placed in a closed space up against each other. What happens? What the fuck happens? Each attempts to balance the other by the one with less energy absorbing the one releasing energy; in this case heat. Do the math, you like me, like we, have been had? Wake up so we can stop killing people with out a good god damn reason!




http://www.911blogger.com/2005/12/steven-jones-research-paper-update.html

In Fahrenheit

Lead (Pb) Melts -- 621
Faint Red -- 930
Blood Red -- 1075
Aluminum Melts -- 1221
Medium Cherry -- 1275
Cherry -- 1375
Bright Cherry -- 1450
Salmon -- 1550
Dark Orange -- 1630
Orange -- 1725
Lemon -- 1830
Light Yellow -- 1975
White -- 2200
Structural Steel Melts -- ~2750
Iron Melts -- 2800


When the very few take over the many the very few will be the only ones to know it.

and kept under unrecoverable conditions as it was destroyed.

End of story.

over and over again.




Great post. We would think by now that the average person would have it figured out. From the beginning, ......... it is now clear, that the average peson didn't want to know and it is likely that there is no way to make them want to know until it is too late, and of course there are those exploiting that tendancy.

However, agreement on issues such as you present do have an impact, so I agree.

While heat transfer is driven by temperature, it has nothing to do with how much energy the two bodies have because unless they are of the same composition, their heat capacities will probably be different. You can therefore have heat transfer from a body with less energy to one with more energy, as long as the former is at a higher temperature than the latter.

But two bodies will only transfer heat based on the temperature difference between them, and it is possible (because of different heat capacities) for one body to have less energy than the other but still have a higher temperature.

"...nothing to do with how much energy the two bodies have because unless they are of the same composition, their heat capacities will probably be different..."

Sure the heat capacity can be different - that is independent of energy, which is proportional to temperature (basics of black body radiation).

Rubble of any kind will probably act as a bit of an insulator compared to molten steel. But heat would be lost from the steel and be absorbed by the rubble anyway. At any rate there's no way any amount isolation can cause the temperature of the heated steel to rise above what is was to begin with - which was the temperature of burning airplane fuel and office contents, which is nowhere near the melting point of steel.

of the energy of the body to the absolute temperature (assuming we are staying in the same state), it is not independent.

The temperature of burning airplane fuel is dependent on many other factors. Mmost (if not all) of the speculation in this forum is based on assumptions that may not be true. We simply don't know enough about the events here to draw any good conclusions.

Observation doesn't require speculation.

We don't need the rock hard ass evidence the criminals want us to need. Look up, yes look at that picture...

The color after six weeks doesn't lie, and it tells us exactly how hot that pile of crap is. Too fucking hot for anything equitably by that stupid 'official theory' to raise it too after six weeks.

Slice it, dice it, and put a god damn bow on it, you can't run from evidence that proves the towers were brought down under duress that had nothing, again nothing to do with the 'fairy tale' laid out. Observe it don't spin it to oblivian.

You can shovel shit around the point to attempt me to say I am wrong all you like but you can't change the fact that nothing the government has lied to you or me about will equate to the picture provided above; nothing not a damn thing.

6 Weeks later, if your still think jet fuel would cause this heat your either and idiot or you are working for the 'official team'. Yes let me be clear you playing cards with a bullshit deck if you think jet fuel from 80 floors above the earth after six weeks was causing the pile of ruble to reach temperatures that would melt the engines designed to use that same fuel as propellant.

I am sorry that you have to realize that nothing can provide an adequate explanation of this fact nothing in the ‘official bullshit’, but something did provide much, much, much more heat; which after six weeks of being insulated this heat made metal run described by witnesses like a river or water.

Stop buying the bullshit, it stinks, and you are selling out America!

for six weeks? Why would you think anyone believes that?

"Why do you hate America?" retort.

The older I get the more I realize that the only people who feel 100% certain about complex events are those too stupid to understand them in the first place.

As for stupidity that is the realm of those who ask questions with no answers such as the one you propose. If you are going to define my logic as it is of my own character; you’re not very bright. Nor care much about the truth, it sounds like you’re more interested in me.

The pattern that you speak which is truly offensive to my American values is that of denial, followed by a dose of discrediting, and if that is not enough just distract away from the point. Which I will remind you has to do with the available ‘heat energy’ at ground zero; you know the picture showing hot metal six weeks too late.

I could be in a padded white room cuffed to the bed and that wouldn’t change the facts.

If you want to talk about an un-American pattern start with that which denies the people of America the whole truth. The pattern that doesn't allow a decent question to go un-discredited so that a small group of myopic self deluded ass hats can continue to bend the rest of us over a barrel.

You know you’re really entertaining because your so busy flinging shit that you just won’t stop to realize that on this point you’re up a creek without that proverbial paddle. There is simply not enough voodoo mathematics in the entire world which could make this problem go away.

and stating that there are lots of unknowns is "flinging shit"?

When have I tried to make this problem go away? I want answers just as much as the next poster; I simply can't tolerate uneducated morons making bold statements without any understanding whatsoever of the complexities inherent to events such as the collapse of the WTC towers. Yes, this happens everywhere on every issue, but that doesn't give September 11th a pass.

Real questions do deserve real attention, not the kind of vapid speculation so often seen here.

any more correct or plausible. I also believe that communicating concepts by methods that are beyond the common grasp do little to further the questions that still need to be asked by the majority of people they affect.

My anger, my frustration is not with people or you it is with a systematic undermining of what is possible due to some imaginary and implausible reach for perfection. If you knew and used this as a week spot in my INTP heart then you are just a bastard but if you yourself are seeking competence I apologize for my direct attacks.

A select group will not bring light to the truth, only questions with obvious answers can do that; the realm of common sense.

Common sense to me is that the heat found at the WTC site six weeks post collapse, is not from the fairy tale we have been told. It is not just unlikely it is completely implausible that anything commonly found on the structure of an airplane or within a super structure could rise to the temperatures you yourself can observe above without something else present to provide said heat. This simple point is a wedge of truth that will split the shit out of this utter lie for some folks. Is it the shot in the arm every American needs to awaken from this nightmare; I would be a fool if I thought that to be the truth.

I just don't think it does any good to make definitive statements without any real supporting evidence. You may find it implausible that the events occurred as you outlined, but I have been proved wrong about things I found implausible enough times to be wary of conclusions drawn from such feelings. There are just too many unknowns, and I don't think a search for truth should be based on assumptions about those unknowns. Prove your point conclusively before moving on to arguments based on that point - that's my philosophy (at least when it comes to forensic engineering - sometimes you have to fly by the seat of your pants).

I probably am a bastard but somebody has to keep his/her eye on the fundamentals - at least I'm not a grammar nazi. :)

such high temperature that steel would melt?
I say, short of injecting massive amounts of fuel and oxygen (creating a blast furnace), that's impossible. If you claim it is possible, by all means do provide evidence.

The main fact remains that for steel to be heated to the temperature shown in the photo it has to be in contact with a much larger mass of material at that same temerature, as the process of coming to thermal equilibrium will cool the hotter material. To be able to maintain these kinds of temperatures over a period of many days requires a considerable energy source.

Jet fuel could not possibly heat anything to the temperatures required for the steel, or the NASA Infrared readings taken at ground level, so something else was going on underground after the towers fell.

Whatever it was, it had to be highly energetic. Thermite or something similarly exothermic is all that comes to mind ...

First I've seen of this picture. I always assumed the "molten steel" observations were actually aluminum....but this pic clearly shows what looks to be steel heated up to the 1700-1800 degree range.

Could there have been a broken gas line feeding the fire? Seems like there'd be enough air getting into the pit, but unless there was a high quality and continuous source of fuel, I find it hard to believe that the metals could maintain these heat levels for that amount of time....while the rubble would certainly act as an insulator, there had to be plenty of peripheral steel, copper, and aluminum in the rubble to act as heatsinks to reduce the core temperatiure.

So, if there is no conventional fuel source that explains the steel temperature....what non-conventional sources could be considered?

That is what I saw, what does it take to turn a concrete building to dust before it hits the ground?

These are just questions that I find very unanswered.

a concrete building turning to concrete dust. The WTC's were not concrete buildings, they were steel buildings with lightweight concrete floors. Perhaps the dust was from vermiculite, gypsum, ceiling tiles, insulation, glass. Try and roll that around your head for a few minutes. There were actually studies done that show the majority of the dust was as above.

to withstand twice (2X) its load strength collapses to it's foundations by only 1X it's load.

Rolling around in my head are questions like.

So how does a building with un symmetrical damage symmetrically shred to it's pieces in mid air with only half the design load, twice?

Then how does it leave a footprint that establishes temperatures only plausible via non 'official bullshit'? These are just questions. They will only hurt if you believe 19 stripper lovin Muslims could cause jet fuel and office supplies to melt steel. Talk about special effects.

It's not hard to see that a puzzle with pieces that don’t fit together is simply not the picture some people desire it to be.

Alas there wouldn't need to be such the effort to convince people that me, is not fit to share details with them. Simple details that require me to be the unfit in order for others to ignore; judging me doesn't prove me right or wrong.

This point will not vaporize, and melt away like it was supposed too.

Which makes me wonder how many Bush supporters associate Allah with Satan
and find in supernatural 9/11 events only validation of their opinion that
9/11 was the work of the devil and Islam must be destroyed.

and the rolling will stop.

At least you could hit me with something relevant other then the fact the mass of a building designed to have each floor support twice the structural load it suspended above collapsed under its own load. By force of its own gravitational load each crashed through and according to the 'fairy tale' caused two symmetric style collapses down to their foot prints from unique and different damage patterns.

The truth can be observed like the fact presented above.

1. weight bearing, structural supports are destroyed by the impact of the 767, redistributing the weight to the remaining supports. Those remaining supports are at or over their design weight bearing limits.

2. some of those supports are subjected to intense fires - it doesn't take long for them to weaken and lose weight bearing capacity (they don't melt)

3. one of those supports reaches it limit and fails. When that first support fails anything above it moves downwards and becomes a dynamic load.

4. once the weight above the impact zone is moving, the designed static load figures are irrelevant.

I think you're forgetting a few details, like:

1. Safety factors. Skyscrapers are grossly overengineered to prevent exactly this kind of catastrophe. WTC safety factors could have been anywhere from 2 to 10, meaning anywhere from 123 to 222 (50%-90%) of the columns on any floor would have to give way before even a partial collapse could occur.

2. It takes long time all right, like forever. To my knowledge it's never happened to a finished steel-framed skyscraper.

3. Steel isn't brittle, like glass, but ductile, like, well, steel. It doesn't snap, it sags.

4. Force = MA and depends on acceleration, which under the influence of fires alone would be nonexistent.

So much for dynamic loading, although I have to admit it does sound scientific.

1. Safety factors are for static loads - MIT scientist calculated that the overload factor was on the order of 63 times the designed weight.

2. Does your knowledge encompass a building that suffered severe structural damage before the fires? If the columns are at their designed weight holding limits (fewer columns but the same weight), than it would not take a long time for the steel to loose enough strength to be overloaded. I could see a scenario where a loss of 10, 15, 20 percent of load bearing capacity is enough.

3 and 4. But doesn't that sagging put the load into motion? And if it is moving isn't it a dynamic load? And if it is a dynamic load isn't there acceleration?

Nice try.

Is that the fellow who doesn't know about the conservation of angular momentum? I'd love to see his or her calculations.

2. I don't doubt that you can imagine a scenario, but there were 247 columns supporting each level, and at least half of them would have to be severed, not just lightly toasted, to produce failure overloading. That didn't happen.

3, 4. Sagging: since the planes severed only a handful of columns, fires would have had to heat at least half of them beyond failure temperatures in a very few minutes to produce sagging, and that didn't happen, either, nor has it ever.

But as Hemingway once said, isn't it pretty to think so?

for there to be downward motion - all that KE would then be transmitted to the remaining columns and joints. Why are you unable to grasp the fact that the energy associated with dynamic loads are orders of magnitude greater that static loads?

you are mistaken. Look at a photo of either tower after the crash but before the collapse sequence, and you'll notice several perimeter columns not just sagging, but missing, and no movement whatsoever of the columns above.

Have I mentioned that the structural systems of steel skyscrapers are incredibly redundant and robust? The loss of any single column, beam, or truss isn't going to release some ferocious quantity of "KE." It isn't going to do anything.

what mechanism - natural or un-natural, would create the prolonged temperatures we saw? How about for once you provide an answer instead of more questions - because we all know that questions prove nothing in of and of them selves (unless you belief in ID but that is another issue.)

relevant to objective observation. If you want me to speculate or draw-up additional evidence then please ask that, but don't ask me to imply an answer to something I do not know. Were you going to use my response to impugn my character?

Tragic really, the photo above represents simple undeniable proof that the 'fairy tale' told about 9-11 has roots in many lies hidden from those they most affect. This also proves something else; that even when confronted with the truth the untruthful will do nothing but deny, discredit, and distract from what we all with our own eyes can plainly see. Six weeks post collapse the rubble is too hot; it's freaking glowing hot as they pull it out of the ground.

If there is any part of that you think needs to be questioned please provide questions that help clear it up. Until then if you want to believe the 'fairy tale' run amok by our flaming out of control press your free to do so good luck with that.

You are the one that has to equate the version you accept with the facts like the one presented above. I don't have to speculate about what I don’t know for me to understand that I can only know what I can observe, if you have something that might help me observe what you are asking then please provide.

even if your questions and comments made sense, they do not prove your case - it is a two step process:

1. prove the official argument is wrong.

2. prove your argument is right.

you seem stuck on step one.

does it's own speaking in this case.

I am not stuck anywhere and I know what I am up to as well. I don't have to prove my point to be correct about anything, I can let the common knowledge that any average person can figure out do that for me.

The simple impossibility that this heat exists is quite the proof I need to force the average person to stop and question what they know. This is not the magic bullet but it is a substantially sound piece of information that cannot be removed from the story even to make it true.

The 'official fairy tale' must exist within a set of boundaries that it can not exceed to remain commonly held knowledge. Exceeding the boundaries of logic is how you shock or as we call it around here wake-up those who see 'fairy tales' as truth.

Your position that the evidence speaks for itself, and the simple impossibilities they show will at some point wake up those seeing fairy tales has a dark side you may not have considered.

What happens when this same evidence is not seen as existing outside the boundaries of commonly held knowledge? (As is the reality of the situation). At what point do you face the fact that in reality it is you that may be seeing fairy tales as truth?

lies.

I am only stating what is obvious to anyone looking at the picture, that it is hotter then my electric stove on high. The stupidity to even suggest this is normal or even possible to either gain or hold such a temperature without the proper means; is so mechanical of you. The picture was taken six weeks post collapse and that is after it has been removed from whence it came.

Are you color blind, blind in general? Is it impossible for you to look at the pictures and pick a fucking color? I really don't think so... I think you either don't want to or you want to make it hard for others, to see the simple truths.

I don't have to imply anything or go beyond this to observe truth as it exists; you do to hide it, and good luck with that.

the temperatures seen are not possible under the circumstances

Thanks

The first law.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Six weeks post collapse temperatures that reach the melting point of the structural elements are present on the ground, in pictures, and in video.

NIST (Fed government) has 'officially' back the 'fairy tale' by stating the temperatures of the fire leading to collapse had only heated the structural members to 800C which is somewhere to the range of 1500F.

So if the report says that the max temperature of the failed portions of collapsing debris is 1500F, how then is the slag from pile clearly by photographic and video evidence a higher temperature then what caused it to fail in the first place? The law requires an additional heat source to be present for that additioanl heat to exist.

underground fire is something you are not familiar with?

which could burn for six weeks to maintain those temperatures. Your just being stupid please stop....

If that heat was provided by underground trapped fire, then we just solved our fucking energy crisis!

not an issue. The amount of combustable material from the building was massive. The only question is can the underground fires get hot enough to melt metal. If the metal is aluminum the answer is yes, the fires are easily hot enough. If the metal is steel there is some debate. I think it can get hot enough under the correct conditions. Some don't think so.

combustible conditions for a 1000 hours to maintain temperatures that could be discerned by the naked eye six weeks after it rested there? Can you let me know when you figure this out because I haven't found shit? It's blazing hot not only from where it came, but even after being pulled into the cool moist coastal air.

There is nothing here to debate 1 Airplane + 1 Building does not cause the temperatures found at the world trade center site. I would like to emphasize the PERIOD at the end of the last sentence. There is nothing to debate a source for this heat must have existed for it to be present. However between the contents of the airplanes and the buildings themselves the maximum temperature the debris should have reached was around 1500F provided to us by the NIST. The color in that photo is at least 'Lemon -- 1830F', and after being removed from the pile which naturally would be even hotter or closer to the maximum temperatures observable in the photo above.

how can it be common knowledge when you can't explain or defend it? That sounds more like unique and idiosyncratic view of the world.

How can the heat be impossible when in fact it existed? The question is what created it - if you are unable to explain how then how can you say with any certainty that it undermines the official story? How does it prove that it was demolition?

All you have is your faith that you are right - I understand that the CT community is faith based but don't expect the rest of us to buy into it with out some evidence that you can explain what you are talking about.

Oh please, my chemistry book that I still have has the same fucking chart which relates color to heat/temperature. This is a standard chart and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to make this simple observation on your own.

You have to be a fucking foolish, halfwit to imply that there are additional questions that must be answered to know that what a person can measure on their very own.

Do the measurement or don't but don't tell me what is being measured or needs to be proven to equate the truth about it. Again I don't have to imply anything for a person to observe the chart and pick a fucking color.

we all agree about the temperatures - we are simply waiting for you to explain what caused them.

Why the insults? Is it because you are frustrated in your inability to articulate what you believe?

Me, nope I did my observation. I know what I see it's you asking me to go out on a limb. Damn try a new tune.

As for belief I don't have that limitation because I presented something that you can observe. Since observations happen one at a time it is best to limit such observations to the scope at which they can be best judged/understood.

I have a 19 month old and a 4 year old; I don't find you frustrating or your inability to rationalize facts for yourself self frustrating. I find it very robotic of you and your behavior attempting to get me explain something only people who have a problem with my views want me to explain. You obviously know how to read, I would suggest you do some research if you need answers. If you want to point out a problem with the scope of logic that I presented please do so, but don't distract the scope so you don't have to deal with the simple facts presented.

don't questions you!

I guess I don't understand your ultimate point. So what if the official story doesn't explain the temperatures? What does it prove? Are you saying this is proof of demolition? Are you simply saying this is a mystery that no one has an answer for?

For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

In the story of nineoneone all the facts must align with what we define as reality. Better known as our personal versions of what we think about what we think we already know and have figured out.

In the case above where you can measure with your eyes, then read the NIST report, you get a clearly distinct understanding that someone either missed some digits (doubtful). Or more likely they needed their own story to coincide with the 19 party animal Muslim extremist version being touted by the guy who wanted to be a war president.

Seriously though you can't have a fact such as the one I present to you above outside the limits the situation provides without an explanation.

There is no fuel in the world that will burn at those temperatures for six weeks. Trapped existing heat will not escape such a compact pile of rubble though. Did you forget about all that dust? It works really good in large quantities for trapping heat.

Now the problem wasn't that there was some heat, the buildings were burning even on the ground. The problem is that the available circumstances don't allow for the temperature that you can measure yourself to exist without further explanation. Since that explanation has to include the reality that no fuel one earth could burn at such high temperatures for such a period of time. We must then assume that the temperature was provided by something that exists beyond the story told by the war president; an unknown yet to be observed fact.

regarding temperatures reached during combustion. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me?

I'm not sure we'll ever know the truth, to be honest.

the buildings were blown in many places

Ok here's an explanation:
Naturally, stuff burning in offices be it jet fuel, paper, the mayor's secret store of hash or whatever is not going to cause steel to melt.

So what I suggest happened is that because all the trusses failed identically at once causing the central core to collapse in on itself and sucking a huge vortex of air down the centre of the collapsing building literally burning all combustible material at once and creating furnace temperatures literally in the seconds that it took each of the three buildings to collapse?

I call this the multiple-simultaneous-joint-failure-implosion-vortex-furnace theory. (Jimmy Walter can I have my $1,000,000 please)

Does this sound plausible?
Of course it doesn't.

The feeble attempts to explain this in the context of the so called "official explanation" are awe-inspiring.

As regarding whether this is steel or aluminium, perhaps the fact that all the people who reported the molten metal in the basements called it "molten steel" might indicate that it is molten steel.
Or they could have been mistaken, maybe the buildings fell down because they were built with that same 25% aluminium/ 75% monkey shite alloy that they use to make the screws on Japanese motorbikes.

The one that allows unsymmetrical damage in two buildings to result in three identical collapses patterns; which mirror the patterns of buildings brought down buy boom boom explosives.

they specially made the buildings top heavy so that in the event that of a plane crashing into them or even somebody holding an aerobics class on the top floor they would collapse in a very neat footprint.

Naturally this adds to my theory that the base of the buildings was constructed from aluminium and just the top was steel. They decided it was a bad idea halfway up.

Oh, I forgot to say, they built them on top of a volcano.

I understand the downward forces on the collapsing towers - gravity times mass. Where do the horizontal forces come from that would cause the towers to not fall in their footprints? What is the relative size differences between the two forces?

You never see trees fall in their own footprint :sarcasm: