StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Who was responcible for WTC? Marvin Bush, younger brother to the president. And he was also the head of security at the Dulles airport and at American airlines."

"They say there were a lot of fire drills in the months before 9/11."

9/11 was an inside job. That is not a theori it is a fact it was an inside job. Professor Steven E. Jones has tested the concrete or the dust from the remains. And the dust has been tested and showed it has elements of thermite. It melts steel like a hot knife through butter when it reaches the heat of 4500 C.

In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University. On October 20, 2006, he announced his retirement. He holds that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition during the September 11 attacks.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

him: i havent bothered to research 9/11 btw
me: I didn't think you would
him: i'm happy to fence sit, tbh
me: ok
me: but if your fence sitting, you shouldn't bring the topic up unless your asking for more infomation
me: could you briefly describe your problems with the official story now so that I can look into them
him: 1) what the fuck happened to the core
2) Jet fuel, regardless of torsion or metal fatigue, might not be able to do that from the temperatures I've read, especially since the fire was restricted to a couple of floors
me: jet fuel may not be able to do what exactly ?
him: Cause the entire building to collapse
him: and if it did, it would do so via torsion
him: which would make it go sideways
me: anything else ?
him: those are my 3 main objections
me: three ?, you only llsted two
him: 3) if it did collapse via distortion, it would go sideways
him: oh and
him: 4) they both collapsed the same way
me: read over what you have written and make sure that you haven't left out anything important

Dark Primus wrote:-snip link-
And he is using this picture to boost his claims that is liquid steel caused from the heat of the thermite.

him: 1) what the fuck happened to the core

2) Jet fuel, regardless of torsion or metal fatigue, might not be able to do that from the temperatures I've read, especially since the fire was restricted to a couple of floors

him: and if it did, it would do so via torsion
him: which would make it go sideways

him: 4) they both collapsed the same way

bilateralrope wrote:I do have this site and two videos on google video (1, 2) that look useful for but I don't have time to look at them tonight. But the more sources I can use the better my argument will be.

Dark Primus wrote:Thank you, but I have already showed that to him. But he claims that thermite (which I think is the english word for it) was planted inside the building before the plane crashed into it. Which then melted the steel causing the buildings to collapse.

him: hi
Bilateralrope: hi
Bilateralrope: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=119150 < this is the thread where I'm asking for help with your problems with the WTC collapse
Bilateralrope: does Surlethe answer your points well enough ?
him: not as to why all models indicate the core would stand after the floors pancaked
Bilateralrope: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3263850613 < this video shows something standing for a few secoudns after the collapse
Bilateralrope: would that be the core ?
him: most likely. it should have been able to take it though
him: the fact it collapsed so fast is suspicious
Bilateralrope: even after the steel was down to 70% of its strength ?
Bilateralrope: sorry, down to 30%
Bilateralrope: http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/91 ... c144446007 < also, read this
him: it's freaking steel. It should be able to survive an effin fire
him: even at 30%
him: there has only been one time a steel building has collapsed from fire
him: Ever.
Bilateralrope: even though the core was recieving a type of load it was not designed to take ?
Bilateralrope: show me the caluclations to back up this claim of yours
him: IT WAS BUILT TO EAT A BOEING 707
Bilateralrope: and it withstood a larger plane. It was the fire that finished the tower off
Bilateralrope: a fire spreading multiple floors
him: I still think steel should hold at 30% capacity
him: they build towers with redundancoes
him: *redundancies
Bilateralrope: in other words, you don't have any calculations to back up your claim, just faith ?
him: it's insulting to the builders to claim FIRE took out their tower
Bilateralrope: and why didn't you bring this up yesterday ?
him: there has only been one time a steel building has collapsed from fire
him: well
him: I consider repeated experiments
him: to prove that fire can't kill a steel building
him: and you seem to be ignoring the point
Bilateralrope: what experiments ?
him: the various fires in steel buildings
Bilateralrope: be more specific so that I can find out what differes between those fires and the wtc collapse
him: Every time that a freaking steel building has been on fire.
Bilateralrope: I'll look into that
Bilateralrope: do you have any other claims that you didn't bring up yesterday ?
him: nope
Bilateralrope: do you have any calculations to back up:
him: it's freaking steel. It should be able to survive an effin fire
him: even at 30%
Bilateralrope: or your claim that the core collapse was too fast ?
him: I'm sorry, but I left my engineering degree at the office
Bilateralrope: I'll accecpt calculations performed by someone else
Bilateralrope: and you will probably understand them better than me
Bilateralrope: but without calculations, both of those claims are worthless
him: I think my claim of past fires still holds
Bilateralrope: I'll need to look into those fires
him: well it's simple enough; no fire has ever collapsed a steel building, except for the WTC
Bilateralrope: I'm expecting to see differences in the tempratures those fires reached and/or the load above the fires
him: FEMA was at the WTC the day before the collapse
bomb sniffing dogs were not there for the weeks beforehand, when they usually were
him: more evidence
him: the cameras were shut down beforehand
Bilateralrope: if you don't have evidence to back up those claims, they are wortheless and will be ignored
him: no evidence beyond eyewitnesses
Bilateralrope: well show me their statments
him: thats the problem. We're fighting on uneven terms. You have the "official story" which is "evidence"
him: http://wtc7.net/buildingfires.html
Bilateralrope: I havn't used the official report as evidence here.
Bilateralrope: so are you going to actually give me the witness statments, or are you just going to make claims about what they said ?
him: im trying to bloody find them
Bilateralrope: so you took those statments as fact without questioning them ?
Bilateralrope: and then expected me to do the same ?
him: no im putting them forward. On their own they mean nothing
him: because I agree
him: they are nothing more than speculation. BUT. They add weight to my arguments
him: and consider this:
Bilateralrope: only if you have evidence to back them up
Bilateralrope: without evidence they are worthless
Bilateralrope: and if they can be shown to be incorrect, that hurts your credibility
Bilateralrope: so without evidence, at best they do nothing for you, at worst they hurt you

bilateralrope wrote:I just had another chat session with him. His new claims are:
- core fell too fast/shouldn't of fallen (with no calculations to back it up)

- only one other steel building has collapsed from fire

- FEMA was at the WTC the day before the collapse
- The usual bomb sniffing dog patrols weren't present
- Camers were shut down beforehand

Dark Primus wrote:Here is another interesting thing:

9/11 was an inside job. That is not a theori it is a fact it was an inside job. Professor Steven E. Jones has tested the concrete or the dust from the remains. And the dust has been tested and showed it has elements of thermite. It melts steel like a hot knife through butter when it reaches the heat of 4500 C.

Surlethe wrote:It's not a shop, or at least there were columns of liquid metal like that running down the side of the building.

Surlethe wrote:

him: 4) they both collapsed the same way

Given that the same mechanism was at work in both buildings, that's precisely what you'd expect.

Adrian Laguna wrote:

Surlethe wrote:It's not a shop, or at least there were columns of liquid metal like that running down the side of the building.

Must be the exceedingly low quality of the image that made me think it was, the thing's chock full of artifacts.

Surlethe wrote:

him: 4) they both collapsed the same way

Given that the same mechanism was at work in both buildings, that's precisely what you'd expect.

Actually, they didn't quite collapse the same way. The first tower to go had the horizontal tresses that canceled the outward bending force exerted on the exterior load-bearing columns by the weight of the building weakened by the fire. They broke and in turn caused the exterior columns to snap, you can actually see them snapping if you have a good enough video on hand and know what to look for. I don't remember the details of what exactly happened to the second tower, but it had something to do with the core losing its structural integrity. If you look carefully, you can kind of see the interior starting to fall a moment before the exterior.

The reason they collapsed differently has to do with how each plane impacted each tower. The first plane to hit penetrated the tower head-on, hitting its core. The second plane to hit did so at an angle, severing external supports but leaving the core relatively intact. Thus each tower collapsed with its most damaged part going first.

Surlethe wrote:

him: 1) what the fuck happened to the core

It collapsed.