Question for Non-9/11 Truthers: Did You Know Jet Fuel is Just Kerosene?

[[serious]]

We are not talking about steel being "deformed" we are talking about it cut into little pieces and being hurled out laterally:

Lets assume we are talking about cutting steel beams and hurling them laterally instead of simple structural failure.

What is your theory about what cut those steel beams and hurled them laterally? Explosives? On every floor? cut into super special cutting charges to make those little pieces?

Why? If you are going to fake a building collapse, why not have it be a simple collapse?

For absolutely any purpose i can think of, faking such a collapse doesn't make any sense.

 

[rawo]

Lets assume we are talking about cutting steel beams and hurling them laterally instead of simple structural failure.

What is your theory about what cut those steel beams and hurled them laterally? Explosives? On every floor? cut into super special cutting charges to make those little pieces?

Why? If you are going to fake a building collapse, why not have it be a simple collapse?

For absolutely any purpose i can think of, faking such a collapse doesn't make any sense.

Reposting everything you flat out ignored below, so you can have another chance to address the points. As for your question, it doesn't matter what my theory is, first we must agree that the official theory is impossible. Then you start positing alternative theories. Do we agree the official story is impossible? I gave you details as to why. If you can't rebut them, let's agree on that and I'll give you an alternative theory. But we're not going to play "tell me what did happen or you can't tell me what didn't."

well, blacksmithing is a lie unless the adiabatic burn temperature of coal (and kerosene) is in the 3800 F range. Then that would be bigger than the 2500 F melting point of steel and make it reasonable that an enclosed fire would get hot enough to deform steel.

We are not talking about steel being "deformed" we are talking about it cut into little pieces and being hurled out laterally:

You can zoom in and see the pieces close up in THIS PHOTO, seen below.

A closer view:

Also you have a poor understanding of how metallurgy works. Fuel requires a mechanically forced air supply to reach high temperatures, like a bellows or the air pump in a blast furnace, a very time-consuming and costly process. In a blast furnace air is super-heated before being forced into the melting chamber, which itself requires lots of expensive fuel and machinery. A blacksmith still has to do considerable labor as he only heats steel or iron to the point where it can be worked, with lots of pounding and hammering.

If the officlal 9/11 story is true then bin Laden revolutionized the steel industry. All you ever needed was a hollow tower, kerosene and throw-away furniture, and a few gashes for convection current to get steel hot enough to work. Imagine wasting all that money all those years on coal and energy for the air pumps, or having slaves sweating at the bellows to get steel soft enough just to pound into shapes, with a lot of muscle. Light some kerosene and office carpet and viola!

It really takes only a little thinking to see how absurd the official story is.

https://flic.kr/p/18778758371

Is it less awful than "Explosive Evidence" by the same group? Because I wasted a whole bunch of time watching and dissecting that, and if you can't tell me that this is considerably stronger in the "evidence" department, then I'm just not going to bother. You see, the combined expertise and endorsement of those 2,000 architects and engineers rings more than a little hollow when you email the organization and ask them if they have any papers on the subject published in peer-reviewed journals, and they say "no, but it shouldn't matter". Yes, actually, it kinda freakin' does! A petition like this is entirely meaningless if it's not strongly supported by the evidence published in the peer-reviewed literature. The anti-climate-change petition has more than ten times the signatories and it doesn't change the facts of the issue. .

Also, I wonder if you've seen the JREF deconstructions of that list of "2,000 architects and engineers" - turns out only like 6 of them have any expertise.

So I'll tell you what; you guarantee me that this documentary is less stupid than "Explosive Evidence", and I'll watch right up until the first blatant lie.

Here is the full Explosive Evidence. Put your money where your mouth is and identify the first lie, with the time it occurs at. And below that is The New Pearl Harbor, which is even better. It's easy to say blah blah blah bunch of lies. Show me one.

BTW I read your "dissection" of Explosive Evidence that you linked, it consist of, for example, critiqueing that they don't offer an explanation of how thermite works. That's not pointing out a "lie." You are saying that unless a full alternative mechanism for collapse is shown, you cannot prove the official one impossible. That's dumb. That's like saying unless you can tell me how that water is running uphill, I am not seeing it running uphill, even if it clearly is. You are equating the failure to offer an alternative hypothesis with a falsehood.

 

[crjmurray]

So what happened?

 

[[serious]]

Reposting everything you flat out ignored below, so you can have another chance to address the points. As for your question, it doesn't matter what my theory is, first we must agree that the official theory is impossible. Then you start positing alternative theories. Do we agree the official story is impossible? I gave you details as to why. If you can't rebut them, let's agree on that and I'll give you an alternative theory. But we're not going to play "tell me what did happen or you can't tell me what didn't."

Reposting what all of that doesn't answer:

Lets assume we are talking about cutting steel beams and hurling them laterally instead of simple structural failure.

What is your theory about what cut those steel beams and hurled them laterally? Explosives? On every floor? cut into super special cutting charges to make those little pieces?

Why? If you are going to fake a building collapse, why not have it be a simple collapse?

For absolutely any purpose i can think of, faking such a collapse doesn't make any sense.​

Now, as for the thermite, that wouldn't do anything to explain the lateral movement of debris you cited. So I'll add some extra emphasis to this point:

What is your theory about what cut those steel beams and hurled them laterally?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Blimey, I didn't know there were truthers still out there. I guess I don't hang out in the right corners of the internet. Over at the JREF forum there are archived resources for debunking every single 9/11 truth argument ever made.

 

[crjmurray]

I'm genuinely asking what supposedly happened if the official story is wrong/a hoax/conspiracy/crab people.

Two planes crashed into the towers. The towers fell (but not due to the planes). A third tower falls (but not due to debris from the first two towers apparently). So what caused the towers to fall? Not the planes according to the OP. Planted explosives? Why? Why bother with the planes?

If the evidence doesn't point to a terrorist act committed by a motivated and capable group with commercial airliners then what does it point to?

 

[The Cadet]

I'm genuinely asking what supposedly happened if the official story is wrong/a hoax/conspiracy/crab people.

Two planes crashed into the towers. The towers fell (but not due to the planes). A third tower falls (but not due to debris from the first two towers apparently). So what caused the towers to fall? Not the planes according to the OP. Planted explosives? Why? Why bother with the planes?

If the evidence doesn't point to a terrorist act committed by a motivated and capable group with commercial airliners then what does it point to?

Yeah, see, this is the weirdest part of the conspiracy to me. If they're going to go through the trouble of wiring up the buildings to explode, why not just say the terrorists did that? Why introduce countless potential complications? Why not just, yanno, say Al Qaeda rigged the buildings to explode? Hell, you could have done it way easier, and with considerably more collateral damage that way.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

An old youtube video shows how the collapse happened. Weakened, sagging floor trusses pulling the perimeter columns inwards causing bowing, which can be seen in the old footage. Then they snapped:

 

[crjmurray]

Yeah, see, this is the weirdest part of the conspiracy to me. If they're going to go through the trouble of wiring up the buildings to explode, why not just say the terrorists did that? Why introduce countless potential complications? Why not just, yanno, say Al Qaeda rigged the buildings to explode? Hell, you could have done it way easier, and with considerably more collateral damage that way.

To me its the only part of the conspiracy that needs to be looked at. The point of this thread, the idea that a propellant can't cause a fire to burn hotter than its initial ignition temperature, is ridiculous. I grill three or four times a week. I don't know what temperature lighter fluid burns at but it certainly isn't the 500 degrees I cook a steak at. You have to have an ignition and fuel, two things that the tower fires had. I've seen gun barrels melted in a standard house fire. I've seen them "cooked" inside of gunsafes rated for 1500 degrees. In a small condensed fire with plenty of fuel and oxygen, a fire gets much hotter than the average person understands. There's nothing in the twin towers that prevented a fire from getting hot enough to cause significant structural damage. So if the official story is possible (and it certainly is) and all the evidence points to the official story being true (which it does) then what alternative to the official story is there that better explains the evidence?

 

[rawo]

To me its the only part of the conspiracy that needs to be looked at. The point of this thread, the idea that a propellant can't cause a fire to burn hotter than its initial ignition temperature, is ridiculous. I grill three or four times a week. I don't know what temperature lighter fluid burns at but it certainly isn't the 500 degrees I cook a steak at. You have to have an ignition and fuel, two things that the tower fires had. I've seen gun barrels melted in a standard house fire. I've seen them "cooked" inside of gunsafes rated for 1500 degrees. In a small condensed fire with plenty of fuel and oxygen, a fire gets much hotter than the average person understands. There's nothing in the twin towers that prevented a fire from getting hot enough to cause significant structural damage. So if the official story is possible (and it certainly is) and all the evidence points to the official story being true (which it does) then what alternative to the official story is there that better explains the evidence?

Only the willfully blind could not see that this is a demolition, you can actually see the steel frame being cut and the pieces hurled laterally at speeds which can be calculated to be over 80mph (rate= distance/time.)

You can also clearly hear the explosives going off here

The technology for doing this is well-developed. Read "How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition."

It looks to me like they used cutter and kicker charges, cutter of "linear" charges look like this and come all sizes:

http://www.mil-spec-industries.com/Mil-Spec-Industries-Product-Details.aspx?ID=4148&prodname=Flexible Linear Shaped Charges&page=4

This is how they work. You can see how this charge cuts this beam neatly in two. This resembles exactly how they found the tower frames in thousands of neatly cut pieces scattered for a quarter mile across the WTC complex, see the aerial photo below. That photo was taken 10 days after the destruction.

You can zoom in and see the pieces close up in THIS PHOTO, seen below.

A closer view:

I'm genuinely asking what supposedly happened if the official story is wrong/a hoax/conspiracy/crab people.

Two planes crashed into the towers. The towers fell (but not due to the planes). A third tower falls (but not due to debris from the first two towers apparently). So what caused the towers to fall? Not the planes according to the OP. Planted explosives? Why? Why bother with the planes?

If the evidence doesn't point to a terrorist act committed by a motivated and capable group with commercial airliners then what does it point to?

9/11 provided the rationale for the invasion and occupation of the Middle East, which has been on the Neocon agenda for a long time. They even talked about it openly at a group called Project for a New American Century, which said in a paper that it would require a "new Pearl Harbor" to make these things happen. This was in 1998. Many members of PNAC wound up in the Bush administration, including Cheney, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. 9/11 points to what is called a "false flag" operation, which is attack by someone which is meant to be blamed on someone else, to justify war. All the Constitution-shredding of the past 14 years, the erosion of your rights and liberties, the Patriot Act, NSA, TSA etc., was all brought in after 9/11. All these things make us much easier to control.

As for your other question, a jolt was needed to the American psyche which would make possible the invasion and occupation of a country the size of California. How would third world terrorist have the access and technology to wire three buildings and make them disappear? That part of your question doesn't make sense. I think the planes were necessary because people would put down the impossible to jet fuel, not knowing that it is only kerosene.

It's easy to remote guide a plane into any target. They fly drones in Afghanistan from cubicles in Nevada all the time. This is probably what happened. In fact, guess who pioneered the technology to seize a planes controls from the ground in the event of hijack? Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, another member of Project for a New American Century.

Zakheim was also in charge of the finances at the Pentagon at the time $2.3 TRILLION was discovered missing, ANNOUNCED ON THE DAY BEFORE 9/11. But of course after that it was never mentioned again.

 

[crjmurray]

Only the willfully blind could not see that this is a demolition, you can actually see the steel frame being cut and the pieces hurled laterally at speeds which can be calculated to be over 80mph (rate= distance/time.)

You can also clearly hear the explosives going off here

The technology for doing this is well-developed. Read "How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition."

It looks to me like they used cutter and kicker charges, cutter of "linear" charges look like this and come all sizes:

http://www.mil-spec-industries.com/Mil-Spec-Industries-Product-Details.aspx?ID=4148&prodname=Flexible Linear Shaped Charges&page=4

This is how they work. You can see how this charge cuts this beam neatly in two. This resembles exactly how they found the tower frames in thousands of neatly cut pieces scattered for a quarter mile across the WTC complex, see the aerial photo below. That photo was taken 10 days after the destruction.

You can zoom in and see the pieces close up in THIS PHOTO, seen below.

A closer view:

9/11 provided the rationale for the invasion and occupation of the Middle East, which has been on the Neocon agenda for a long time. They even talked about it openly at a group called Project for a New American Century, which said in a paper that it would require a "new Pearl Harbor" to make these things happen. This was in 1998. Many members of PNAC wound up in the Bush administration, including Cheney, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. 9/11 points to what is called a "false flag" operation, which is attack by someone which is meant to be blamed on someone else, to justify war. All the Constitution-shredding of the past 14 years, the erosion of your rights and liberties, the Patriot Act, NSA, TSA etc., was all brought in after 9/11. All these things make us much easier to control.

As for your other question, a jolt was needed to the American psyche which would make possible the invasion and occupation of a country the size of California. How would third world terrorist have the access and technology to wire three buildings and make them disappear? That part of your question doesn't make sense. I think the planes were necessary because people would put down the impossible to jet fuel, not knowing that it is only kerosene.

Do you have any evidence that explosives were involved? All you seem to have is "it looks like a demolition". I can counter that with "no it doesn't". We have video of the planes hitting the towers. We have flight manifests for crew and passengers. Those planes really did hit those towers with people on them. The force of the planes combined with the subsequent fires are sufficient to bring down those buildings without any conspiracy theories. So why add the unnecessary element of a controlled demolition if you have no actual evidence?

 

[rawo]

Do you have any evidence that explosives were involved? All you seem to have is "it looks like a demolition". I can counter that with "no it doesn't". We have video of the planes hitting the towers. We have flight manifests for crew and passengers. Those planes really did hit those towers with people on them. The force of the planes combined with the subsequent fires are sufficient to bring down those buildings without any conspiracy theories. So why add the unnecessary element of a controlled demolition if you have no actual evidence?

Who said planes didn't hit the towers? Not me.

Of course there is evidence that explosives were involved, many different kinds of evidence. Only the scientifically ignorant think steel beams can fly laterally for hundreds of feet at 80mph without explosives behind them. Also there was reacted and unreacted explosives found in the dust samples.

You are simply doing your best to avoid any kind of critical thought because you might not like the answer you arrive at.

Explosive compounds found: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

 

[The Cadet]

Only the willfully blind could not see that this is a demolition, you can actually see the steel frame being cut and the pieces hurled laterally at speeds which can be calculated to be over 80mph (rate= distance/time.)

If I may make a suggestion...

http://ascelibrary.org/journal/jaeied

I'm sure that if you had solid evidence showing that the detonations were, in fact, explosive in nature, these guys would love to see it.

Also, on a side note, anyone citing the Jones paper has lost all credibility on the subject. Seriously.

 

[crjmurray]

Who said planes didn't hit the towers? Not me.

Of course there is evidence that explosives were involved, many different kinds of evidence. Only the scientifically ignorant think steel beams can fly laterally for hundreds of feet at 80mph without explosives behind them. Also there was reacted and unreacted explosives found in the dust samples.

You are simply doing your best to avoid any kind of critical thought because you might not like the answer you arrive at.

Explosive compounds found: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

But you don't need explosives. You have a plane hitting the building. A very large plane. Explosives are not the only way to transfer enough energy to launch a steel beam. Apparently planes do a good job of that. So far I have seen no evidence of explosives involved. Just an erroneous interpretation of some videos and the insinuation that I'm a sheeple.

 

[HitchSlap]

I've never heard an explanation as to why the firefighters assumed it was safe to continue climbing the stairs when a potential for total collapse should have been expected. In fact, weren't the twin towers built specifically to withstand a fully loaded airliner (the largest at the time), sort of like a pencil in mesh effect?

 

[crjmurray]

I've never heard an explanation as to why the firefighters assumed it was safe to continue climbing the stairs when a potential for total collapse should have been expected. In fact, weren't the twin towers built specifically to withstand a fully loaded airliner (the largest at the time), sort of like a pencil in mesh effect?

Because they are firefighters....

That comment is akin to "Why would a soldier rush a machine gun? It's dangerous."

 

[HitchSlap]

Because they are firefighters....

That comment is akin to "Why would a soldier rush a machine gun? It's dangerous."

I'm referring to the radio chatter from FD, as in, 'this floor is not on fire and is secure, come on up.'

FD are trained to not rush headlong into dangerous situations, the motto for first responders is, "me, we, us."

What I'm getting at is, why did FD not suspect that the towers would collapse?

 

[[serious]]

I'm referring to the radio chatter from FD, as in, 'this floor is not on fire and is secure, come on up.'

FD are trained to not rush headlong into dangerous situations, the motto for first responders is, "me, we, us."

What I'm getting at is, why did FD not suspect that the towers would collapse?

Why would we expect them to to have such detailed knowledge of structural engineering?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why would we expect them to to have such detailed knowledge of structural engineering?

Because their lives may depend on it.

 

[[serious]]

Because their lives may depend on it.

When they are in the truck, their life depends on automotive engineering. Do we expect them to be experts in that field as well?