"Highly engineered explosive" found in WTC rubble...

[The Spartan]

I mentioned the diesel generators inside WTC 7 in a debate about the fire there but someone else replied "bullshit because diesel dosent burn", now I know its not as flammable as gasoline but still I imagine it wont remain unaffected if the entire building in which it is housed is on fire. Can someone shed some light on this for me?

That's horseshit. Diesel most certainly burns, it just doesn't ignite the way regular gasoline does. In fact, my dad used to burn trash on the farm he used to own and he's use diesel for that, but he had to use gasoline to ignite it.

[General Zod]

I mentioned the diesel generators inside WTC 7 in a debate about the fire there but someone else replied "bullshit because diesel dosent burn", now I know its not as flammable as gasoline but still I imagine it wont remain unaffected if the entire building in which it is housed is on fire. Can someone shed some light on this for me?

That's horseshit. Diesel most certainly burns, it just doesn't ignite the way regular gasoline does. In fact, my dad used to burn trash on the farm he used to own and he's use diesel for that, but he had to use gasoline to ignite it.

It would be pretty worthless as a fossil fuel if it wasn't capable of burning.

[The Spartan]

It would be pretty worthless as a fossil fuel if it wasn't capable of burning.

Exactly! I mean, that's such a stupid line of reasoning I have trouble comprehending it.

[Darth Onasi]

That assumes the "truthers" have any logic to their arguments.
Of course, they don't. They see what they want to see and anything else is ignored. The ultimate wall of ignorance.
If you could replay the events of 9/11 in absolute, unalterable detail to show precisely how it was not a controlled demolition they would still say it is.

[Master of Ossus]

And doesn't jet fuel burn at a higher temperature than gasoline? I don't recall offhand.

I don't think so, actually: jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives to it, and kerosene for sure burns (slightly) cooler than gasoline. The point is, though, that these types of materials are sufficient to compromise structural steel as applied to buildings.

Anyhow, to answer your question, and I'm not really disagreeing with you, is that even if the fires were hot enough to melt the steel structural failure can (and at the WTC my guess is that it probably did) happen before we reach the point of melting as the WTC towers had severe structural damage that the bridge did not.

To give you an example, the carbon steel I'm used to dealing with has a tensile (ultimate) strength of 60 ksi, a yield of 35 ksi and from -20F up to 400F an allowable stress of 20 ksi. Raise the temperature to 800F and the allowable drops to 10.8. (FYI, those allowables include a 3x safety factor.) Now, the piece itself doesn't reach ultimate failure (in tension) until you hit about 60 ksi, but at ambient up to about 400F, a structure will begin failing when you hit 35 ksi, all things being equal. Raise the temperature to, say 800F, and you'll reach failure much sooner. And that's before you start introducing things like thermal expansion stresses, bending moments and torsional stresses from uneven heating, new shear stresses applied to joints, the structural damage from kinetic impact, etc.

Clearly. In fact, I'd expect in almost all cases for the steel to fracture before it actually got to a melting point just because it's so much weaker and since it's under so much stress that I'd intuitively think it pretty unusual for steel to have to get to the melting point (at which it basically has no structural strength whatsoever) before it failed.

I'd sort of like to see an actual response to the Bay Bridge interchange collapse, though, from one of these conspiracy theorists. I mean, was THAT part of the conspiracy, too? Does steel just fit in that magic point where jet fuel isn't hot enough to compromise it but an overturned fuel truck is?

[Isolder74]

you can weaken steel enough to bend by hand with a campfire! YOu'd think truthers have next ever camped out or actually built a fire before in there life.

One argument they like to use is saying that 9/11 is the first and only time planes have vanished without piles of obvious wreckage.

[Isolder74]

Geddo edit: Somehow link I wsan't even using ended up on the previous post would a mod please delete it. Below is the correct link

you can weaken steel enough to bend by hand with a campfire! YOu'd think truthers have next ever camped out or actually built a fire before in there life.

One argument they like to use is saying that 9/11 is the first and only time planes have vanished without piles of obvious wreckage.

screw loose change flight 93

[Rye]

One thing I never got about 9/11 conspiracy theories is why you'd blow up a building and then make it look like terrorists did it with planes rather than, you know, blowing it up like they tried before? That list of conclusions is downright pitiful. If you get information that contradicts "thermite" as an answer, going "huh, well it must've been SUPER thermite!" is absolutely fucking mental. It'd be like looking in a pond, seeing no frogs, seeing a couple of newts, and then declaring them "super frogs!".

And I swear down, using jet fuel from kamikaze 747 attacks to light thermite instead of a strip of magnesium is the most insane thing I've ever heard.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't think so, actually: jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives to it, and kerosene for sure burns (slightly) cooler than gasoline. The point is, though, that these types of materials are sufficient to compromise structural steel as applied to buildings.

Jet fuel can burn at up to about 1,000°C when fed with air. I’m not sure but I do believe the maximum burning temperature of gasoline fed by air is only about 720°C. Exact numbers will of course depend on the exact grade of either fuel used, and if you feed the fire with pure oxygen you can triple the maximum temperatures. Typically steel loses half its strength, by the time it hits 550°C. It’s amazing that the towers managed to remain standing so long.

I think a lot of idiots who believe the conspiracy theories in part believe them because they have only heard of the ignition temperatures of various fuels which are far lower. Being an idiot is the other, overwhelming factor.

[CaptHawkeye]

I'm still waiting for the truthers to even mention the hundreds of people on the jets who I guess just never existed because a cruise missile hit the Pentagon after all.

I honestly don't think average joe takes Conspiracy retards seriously anymore. Prior to 9/11 they had a fair amount of push on the net because they had never stuck their heads up high enough for lots of serious professionals to put them in their places. Things like the moon landing hoax, grassy knoll, were all pretty common. The 9/11 truthers came out and about around 2004-2006 and summarily had their asses handed to them. It's been 3+ years since I've come across someone even mention the Grassy Knoll theory now.

Oh sure the conspiracy wackos still have their secure little enclaves here and there. Safe behind the walls of obscurity and parroted front page arguments, they intellectually masturbate to themselves everyday and occasionally copy/paste assault some forum or public event.

[Darth Onasi]

There are people who've told me with a straight face that yes, those passengers never existed.
Were I a relative of one of the victims I probably would've decked them so hard the next ten tin foil hat wearers would feel it.

[RedImperator]

I'm still waiting for the truthers to even mention the hundreds of people on the jets who I guess just never existed because a cruise missile hit the Pentagon after all.

They're in witness protection and they and their families are in on the conspiracy.

No joke.

[Isolder74]

I'm still waiting for the truthers to even mention the hundreds of people on the jets who I guess just never existed because a cruise missile hit the Pentagon after all.

They're in witness protection and they and their families are in on the conspiracy.

No joke.

That is even implied in the section of Loose Change about flight 93.

[PeZook]

Of course. It's quite typical: from technology to problematic witnesses, if it doesn't fit with the conspiracy, it's rationalized away.

Because it's so much easier to convince hundreds of people to partake in a plot to murder thousands americans than park a semi truck loaded with C4 in the basement, right?

Other version of the conspiracy include the planes being landed at an air force base and the passengers being executed by the soldiers there. And, of course, none of the soldiers, technicians, ground and air traffic controllers etc. has come out with the truth...

But I always said that 9/11 truthers are nothing but cowards. If they really, seriously believed their own government murdered 3000 Americans in such a grand plot, they should be organizing an armed insurgency, not screaming from their computer chairs.

Seriously. You think your government just killed thousands, and you reveal yourself by agitating that fact, rather than disappearing off the grid? What makes you think they won't come to your house and kill you?

[Sky Captain]

Well, today I had a debate with the "truther" and when I argued there is no logical point to install bombs in buildings you are going to crash planes into since impacts and resulting fires even if not cause collapse anyway would cause great loss of life and wreck the WTC beyond repair.

He threw up this site where it`s said firefighters and policemen reported explosions happening in the WTC

http://911proof.com/11.html

What do you guys think of this?

[PeZook]

Truthers pull this kind of shit a lot: use initial observations and feelings of people on the scene and present them as more credible than careful post-incident analysis.They do the same with the Shanksville crash, showing clips of journalists on the scene saying things like "there's no plane", and painting later analysis as manipulated by government. I had a Truther literally tell me that anything written or shown in the media after September 11th is a lie and must not be believed.

Ask yourself: how many firefighters and policemen have observed a controlled demolition first-hand? Why are they so much more reliable than post-incident analysis? Because of their day job? That's like saying that a soldier on the ground had a better understanding of the situation than historians can get working from documents ten years later.

[Isolder74]

The part that Conspiracists don't seem to grasp is the larger the conspiracy the less chance it has to work.

[PeZook]

Frankly, their entire line of reasoning is ridiculous for all the reasons Rolling Stone observed, everything else is just minutae they argue in order to distract people from the real crux of the argument. Thermite found, how come this collumn was cut and this wasn't, the fire didn't burn hot enough etc.

BUT WHY THE FUCK DID THEY HAVE TO FLY THE DAMN PLANES INTO BUILDINGS THEY WERE GOING TO BLOW UP ANYWAYS?

It involves thousands of people more,and accomplishes nothing. So the government is either retarded or run by Cobra.

[Isolder74]

great now that nasally voice is running through my head.

[RedImperator]

Frankly, their entire line of reasoning is ridiculous for all the reasons Rolling Stone observed, everything else is just minutae they argue in order to distract people from the real crux of the argument. Thermite found, how come this collumn was cut and this wasn't, the fire didn't burn hot enough etc.

BUT WHY THE FUCK DID THEY HAVE TO FLY THE DAMN PLANES INTO BUILDINGS THEY WERE GOING TO BLOW UP ANYWAYS?

It involves thousands of people more,and accomplishes nothing. So the government is either retarded or run by Cobra.

Well, here's the thing: you can attack a Truther on the "meta" side ("This doesn't make any fucking sense!") of the argument all you want. All he's going to do is trot out his phony-baloney physical evidence that there was a controlled demolition, and then claim that it doesn't matter why the government chose to stage such a ridiculous conspiracy, because they obviously did. I think, from my own experience arguing with Truthers, that the best way to attack is by discrediting their physical evidence first, then hitting them on the meta side.

[tchizek]

So the government is either retarded or run by Cobra.

Maybe both?

To listen to the "truthers" you would think that everyone remotely involved is in on the conspiracy since they (the "truthers") are the only ones that can see what "reality" is...oh right if you see a "reality" that no-one else sees doesn't that make you insane?

[Sky Captain]

That guy also claimed Pentagon was hit by a missile and apparently those hundreds of witnesses who saw the flight 77 crashing were unreliable because their judgment was influenced by the events at WTC (basically if the planes crashed into WTC what else could have hit the Pentagon even if it was not plane) and the Boing 757 debris on the Pentagon`s lawn was planted there by government agents which used the few minutes of chaos following the crash to do that undetected. As another "evidence" that there was missile he pointed there is only few foggy videos showing the crash Although I have to admit it`s rather strange that Pentagon which should have had hundreds of cameras monitoring every possible angle has so crappy video surveillance system.

I know it`s pointless to debate people like him, but I`m just curious what kind of thought process leads otherwise reasonable people believing in such a garbage.

[Havok]

Not to derail this, (it seems like everyone is on the same page already with condemning the idiocy of the article) but what exactly IS the conspiracy that is supposed to exist? I've read people talking about it here a few times, and I've heard ridiculous things like "None of the Jews went to work in the Towers that day.", but I have never heard (or actually cared enough honestly to find out) what exactly the conspiracy is.

[General Zod]

Not to derail this, (it seems like everyone is on the same page already with condemning the idiocy of the article) but what exactly IS the conspiracy that is supposed to exist? I've read people talking about it here a few times, and I've heard ridiculous things like "None of the Jews went to work in the Towers that day.", but I have never heard (or actually cared enough honestly to find out) what exactly the conspiracy is.

Basically? "The government was responsible. . .so they could justify invading Iraq". Or some similar bullshit like that. Most idiot truthers usually don't usually bother giving a reason for doing so that actually makes sense.

[PeZook]

There are actually several versions, from justifying the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, through a plot to make the US a police state down to another step in the NWO's plot for world domination (which step exactly also varies).

Conspiracy theorists have a disturbing habit of treating complete speculation as hard fact.