Something must be wrong with them because your conclusion is wrong. Unless your conclusion is "I'm a kook."

No, people are just tired of wankers and have better things to spend their time on. The people who believe in the conspiracy are never going to have any impact on the world anyway (since they're mostly morons), so it's not worth anyone's time.

But I'll humor you this time...

What does that have to do with anything? The melting point of steel is irrelevant, it's the weakening point which matters. If you want to see how heat weakens steel, try this:

Get a piece of wire, grab both ends, and vigorously bend it back and forth. The bend point will heat up to a couple of hundred of degrees C, and the wire will snap easily after a minute of so. Now try the same thing with the bend point immersed in water. You'll never snap the wire. Even low temperature weakens steel immensely.

Cool burning? I invite all conspiracy believers to jump into a "cool burning" fuel rich fire. The fires were many hundreds of degrees, and most importantly high heat (which is not the same as temperature). As for the black smoke, that can be caused by burning around the edges, by office furniture, and so on. Black smoke proves nothing.

Link to evidence please. I would like to see how steel can withstand 2000 degree temperatures for 6 hours. As evidence of fire weakening steel, have a look at this story about a bridge collapsing after a tanker fire weakened the steel:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2739222.shtml

This is a low temperature, low heat (do you know what the difference is?), open air fire, and it collapsed a steel bridge designed to take hundreds of tons.

In the history of high rise buildings, number that remained standing after a 767 hit them at 500mph: 0

1. They DID withstand it, dummy, as evidenced by the fact that they remained standing for an hour after impact.
2. They did not fall at freefall speeds.


You're welcome.

You have not heard the response to this? It burns plenty hot to soften and expand the steel, which is all it took. There was something about floor supports sagging and coming out of their fixtures.

I'll easily refute this one (although Bill already did). Any documentary of 9/11 that is promoting this ridiculous argument is either produced by morons or those advancing an agenda by appealing to morons.

A 2 second Google on high-temperature material behavior reveals something like this for engineering metals:



Notice the massive drop in strength starting at 1200 degrees? Well guess what -- the melting point of this alloy is 2300-2450 degrees. This is typical behavior. Do you really think steel is as "strong as steel" right up until its a melted pool of sludge? Knowledge of high-temp loss of strength of metals should be elementary to even an undergraduate in mechanical engineering. And yet I've heard it from 9/11 conspiracy theorists at least a half dozen times.

According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%.

The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

-this would still enable the towers to handle the load
-the fires did not reach these temperatures anyway
-Phil, your example is comparing apples and oranges. Find me an example with a skyscraper



http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm

What about all the other inferiorly built skyscrapers that burnt for much longer with hotter fires but did not fall?



20+ hours burning at 800 C and did not fall

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html (one of MANY examples)

are you trying to conclude that these buildings are still standing?

THAT would be a cover-up

Your use of sarcasm to try to divert attention away from my post only strengthens my position. I am providing data and research, not weak humor.

No, it's pretty funny how you think there was some conspiracy involved in this. Not always Ha Ha funny, but still funny.

Makes me feel better about myself that there are maroons like you out there.

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."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

What about all the other girls prettier than you that blew me? Why aren't you the same? (Not you you Jono, an imaginary babe.)

Why would you assume the situations are comparable? That takes intensive scrutiny and testing of the wreckage.

The other fires were not caused by explosive collision with an airborne freight train.

Here's why that is important, not just glib rhetoric:

Reports from the wreckage are that the fireproof insulation coating the load bearing members was blown off (surprise, surprise). So the beams were much more exposed than in other fires. (And about six months ago, there was a freeway that fell down after a gas tanker went up under it.)

So Jono, what do you make of three things that have been raised to you:

1. Failure can occur well before melting point.

2. The fuel was burned off anyway in ten minutes, so hotter, paper and furniture fire kept going.

3. The fireproofing was blown off, exposing steal.

Finally, please tell us you will think about and engage THESE THREE points, before flitting off to a new argument like the stupid people do.

then, with the posting of this image, let me declare to the world:

the government fooled most of the people this time, but not jono. his all-encompassing mastery of science and engineering combined with cold hard logic have exposed the truth, and his gripping argument will stand forever as a testament to his towering intellect.

Kaj, I just addressed all the issues you posted. Namely

how hot the fires burned at
how much load rating the steel had
how weak the steel was at this temperature

Except the issue is...the extent of the structural damage when the big, [censored], plane hit the building.

But I digress, I'm working on an Internet discussion board approach consisting mainly of: "Never argue with a fool" (on accounta what the audience thinks).

What I really wanted to say is this thread might be better than "Dinosaurs on Mars" which inevitably lead posts detailing Noah's bestseller (twenty-four weeks as number 1) "The Capture and Care of Baby Dinos". That thread made me laugh though.

But this one gets props for:
<ul type="square">[*]Captain Insano arguing strategies.[*]The use of my uber-uncommon name in at least four different posts (not in reference to something I said though).[*]The fact that, if you believe Noah packed baby dinos on his ark (or in Noah for that matter) I can think you're an idiot but...you might be right. Whereas, if you believe the government actually put this together, I know you're an idiot. [*]I get to use bullets.[/list]
Anyway, thanks guys, I always appreciate it. Need to get some sleep now (I'll be exposing the Oprah/Jennifer Tilly/Rush Limbaugh cover-up of James Brown's death tomorrow...gotta get my ducks in a row).

No you didn't at all.

The steel engineer just said in my post that steel has about 10% of its original strength at 1800F, which is about where they figured the fire was at with exposed steel members (no fire-proof insulation). Your retort is a 6x safety factor? Do some quick math.

Zelikow background
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuoQZkBFj9A

Zelikow confronted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XQWBQKsqBU

I have my opinions on the subject, but the only thing really in depth I've watched on it is 9-11 Mysteries

just thought I'd share the link

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post11431587


Clearly Nielsio isnt above buying into conspiracy theories that fit his agenda, without evidence

(Im not saying thats necessarily the case in this thread, though)

Nielsio, what in that vid demonstrates that steel isn't weakened by building fires sufficiently for failure??? This is more smokescreen CRAP. Stick to the f-ing topic.

You say, "fires can't melt steal."
We say, "fires can weaken it enough to bend, and every metallurgist in the world knows it."
And you respond, "there's this guy that headed the 911 commission, and here's a vid showing he's got a really shady background..." It's just infuriating that you demand to be taken seriously on this board, but ALWAYS switch subjects when you get jacked up. Which is the whole method of conspiracies... you are trapped inside circles inside circles of thought.

But thanks for an amusing link. My favorite line: In 1998, Zelikow wrote for Foreign Affairs the article "Catastrophic Terrorism, Imagining the Transformative Event," "and the Pearl Harbor like event [911] occurred just three years later."

Interview with Colonel David Hunt on 9/11

"Everyone seems to want to pick on Bin Laden. I think he's an easy target. I'm not too sure yet, that it is. We still have to answer the question who's supporting these people...But we've got state sponsored terrorism. This was such a well planned deal, I would find it difficult to believe that this was done by just a terrorist organisation. This takes inside information. This takes a lot of planning and pin point execution."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1990673692843308164&amp;hl=nl
http://www.archive.org/details/fox5200109112348-0030



Colonel David Hunt has over 29 years of military experience, including extensive operational experience in Special Operations, Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Operations. Most recently, Colonel Hunt served as Tactical Advisor in Bosnia where he facilitated all national intelligence matters for the Commander in Chief, as well as coordinating a $350,000,000 national security program for the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency in 1997.

Prior to this, he served as counter terrorism coordinator to the Summer Olympic Games in Seoul, Korea. In this capacity, David Hunt planned, choreographed and implemented the first United States national response for an Olympic event in Korea in conjunction with Korean National Intelligence and the Korean Crisis Response Agency as the counter-terrorist coordinator.

His role as a leader began with a Special Forces Operational Detachment of 12 soldiers, expanding to command a brigade of over 1,000 personnel. He received his Master's degree in English from Norwich University in 1981, and later graduated from the John F. Kennedy School of Government in Harvard University in 1991.

David Hunt has lectured for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and several other high profile agencies, as well as state and local police officials.

Recently, he has shared his expertise in over 200 televised interviews on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bill O'Reilly of the "O'Reilly Factor" called David Hunt the "Best Military Analyst in the Business" and Fox's "Go to Guy on the War.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37309,00.html

That's nice. Now please post some quotes from the thousands of experts who disagree with this one man's opinion.

Well I'm convinced, Because a bunch of very well educated Saudis who spent months if not years planning this could not pull it off. Why? Ummm, because it takes a lot of planning. Oh, ok.

I'll give you one thing Nielso, you are impervious to embarrassment. I bust your chops for "ALWAYS" changing the subject when challenged, and in the very next post, you change the subject!

We respond, "you always change the subject."

And you say, "but here's an army man who says it's just gotta be a conspiracy. And he's army, ya know."

The best part, Bill, is this from Nielsio's OP: "If you don't want to talk science, take your cynicism elsewhere."

Yea, personality disorder is the only reason for rejecting 911 conspiracy.