The most belivable conspiracy theory

[OGEvilgenius]

The motive for the pentagon is clear. The day before it was announced that trillions were unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget. The next day 9/11 happened and the people working to investigate these issues ended up dead in the Pentagon. And much of the evidence destroyed in WTC7 as well (many investigations were compromised). There was also a lot of gold that went missing in WTC7.

As far as knocking two towers over is concerned it's simply more impactful. Where there were two very distinct and prominent land marks now there are none. And if only one fell but both were hit similarly, that sure would be odd.

It was in general about far more than just war in Iraq.

Terrorism is a useful political tool. Many tyrants through history have known this and seized upon it.

 

[dannyboy602]

"Never let a good tragedy go to waste"
Rahm Emanuel

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

those bildings used spray on asbestos fire insulation. in the US it is a class A carcinogen and treated like nuclear waste. sending it to another country is the only way,, you cant even store it. if they hadnt busted it up, and shipped it out they would have faced even more lolsuits from every jackhole with a sore throat for their "mesothelioma"

It is not treated like nuclear waste and can be deposited in a landfill. They wet the material, wrap it in 6mil poly, then put it in a trench at the landfill.

Learning time:

Asbestos is a natural occurring mineral that we can't expel from our lungs.

Your white blood cells engulf the microscopic fiber but they can not destroy said fiber. The cells then pass into the pleura of your lungs or stomach, where they sit. After 20-40 years you get mesothelioma.

If you are exposed to too many fibers, you develop asbestosis which is a scarring of your lungs.

As for the towers, rumor in my industry is that when it was being built, is when stuff started really coming out on the dangers of asbestos. One tower got the full dose. The other only got a half dose due to the architect being a little freaked by it.

Spray on fireproofing is easily dislodged. Slight finger pressure can displace it. They could have scrapped that here, and lots of it was.

Having said that, I totally do not buy into the 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.
But I can say this qnd know im right: everyone that was within 5 miles was exposed to asbestos. The workers on site will develop one of the following: lung cancer or mesothelioma.

Asbestosis only occurs to those who work up close and personal with mostly raw asbestos day in and day out for 8 or more hours a day.

There are also no laws banning the use of asbestos in America. It can still be used in many products, legally.

 

[NoDrama]

Diesel and jet fuel have very similar makeup. it can most assuredly burn hot enough to soften steel. cn

You are right, if it is compressed and stoichiometrically mixed with air, then yes it can get hot enough, too bad there wasn't any of that going on in the building. Diesel fuel on fire in open air burns at around 500F, for steel to just soften it needs to be around 1100F.

 

[cannabineer]

You are right, if it is compressed and stoichiometrically mixed with air, then yes it can get hot enough, too bad there wasn't any of that going on in the building. Diesel fuel on fire in open air burns at around 500F, for steel to just soften it needs to be around 1100F.

No need for compression ... that's engine-specific. But air admixture is, and the venturi effect f an ordinary fire provides that. Domestic oil-fired heaters use a similar fuel, and they get a good solid two thousand plus out of the flames, with pure venturi aeration. Hydrocarbons burning ... are all very similar in their energetics.

<add> I challenge that 500ºF flame temp. That is the boiling point of a typical Diesel fraction, and below autoignition temp. Fuel oils have adiabatic flame temps above two thousand centigrade (3800ºF), so even an open, inefficient bonfire-type conflagration will heat massive steel to a lively red heat at which it is softer than lead. cn

 

[NoDrama]

skyscrapers dont totter and fall over like a drunk at last call, they collapse into themselves. even large buildings destroyed by artillery shelling, bomb strikes and the nuclear blasts in japan fell down, they didnt tip like trees and crush the rest of the town under them. buildings dont have THAT kind of fibrous longitudinal strength like trees do. they break and fall straight down with only minor lateral movement. the only exception is strong earthquakes which sometimes tip over shitty large buildings the way 9-11 conspiracy believers imagine.

Lateral loads on Skyscrapers such as the twin towers are over 100,000 lbs, the buildings could sway up to FOUR feet either way. Skyscrapers are DEFINITELY built to withstansd MASSIVE lateral loads, like HURRICANES so they don't just break off and topple into themselves. Skyscrapers are not designed to fall into themselves either, they are built to not fall period.

You could have 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel and pour it all over one of those buildings and you won't ever get anything to melt or fall over, sorry , won't happen. Not enough energy in open air.

You guys should try to build a forge, then fuel it with as much diesel as you want, hell give 100 billion cubic feet of diesel fuel and see if you can get a 1 pound ingot of structural steel to melt without having to get some kind of forced air apparatus going. Go ahead I dare ya, if you can do it I will sign over my corvette to you.

I LOL at your theory that skyscrapers are not built that way.

FYI I think you will find that Charcoal is much more efficient than Diesel, but good luck anyway.

 

[NoDrama]

No need for compression ... that's engine-specific. But air admixture is, and the venturi effect f an ordinary fire provides that. Domestic oil-fired heaters use a similar fuel, and they get a good solid two thousand plus out of the flames, with pure venturi aeration. Hydrocarbons burning ... are all very similar in their energetics.

<add> I challenge that 500ºF flame temp. That is the boiling point of a typical Diesel fraction, and below autoignition temp. Fuel oils have adiabatic flame temps above two thousand centigrade (3800ºF), so even an open, inefficient bonfire-type conflagration will heat massive steel to a lively red heat at which it is softer than lead. cn

Well in that case my bic lighter should be able to melt my car then, according to your theory anyway.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

There was also more than fuel burning in that building. People talk about these fires as if these buildings were unoccupied and had zero combustibles inside. Only the fuel burned, no carpet, flooring mastics, wood, plastic, or any one of a thousand products finished buildings are constructed with.

 

[NoDrama]

There was also more than fuel burning in that building. People talk about these fires as if these buildings were unoccupied and had zero combustibles inside. Only the fuel burned, no carpet, flooring mastics, wood, plastic, or any one of a thousand products finished buildings are constructed with.

Go try and melt a nail with as much of that stuff as you can find. I will put $500 on you NEVER being able to melt a nail with it, no matter how much you get.

Really, you guys should try and melt some steel without using forced air, let me know how long it takes before you realize it isn't possible.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

I never said the steel melted. That is your word.

The steel weakened, not melted.

 

[cannabineer]

Well in that case my bic lighter should be able to melt my car then, according to your theory anyway.

Not a Bic lighter. There's a scale issue. But a butane-fired smelter can be built. Hobbyists have build forced-air propane smelters that have fused chromium at over 1600 degrees centigrade! A Diesel-powered one would be even better, if the hobbyist can nail fuel dispersion ... higher adiabatic flame temp. cn

<add> You must know the diff between melting v. weakening. Steel melts to liquidus at a very high temp, but there is an amazingly broad temp window in which it is plastic. Blacksmiths can effectively work steel that's barely glowing. It's much harder work than at a good cherry, but for certain steels it's the chosen technique. cn

 

[NoDrama]

so anyway, my bic lighter gets a adiabatic flame temp of 3600F, which is about 1000F higher than the melting point of steel. I figured a car would take too long to melt so I figured a 2 gram thumb tack ought to melt. so far I went through 15 bic lighters and haven't even gotten it to deform yet.

Maybe the media lied and you all bought it?

 

[NoDrama]

Not a Bic lighter. C'mon man; you're smarter than that. (Even your avatar only uses the lighter as an initiator.) But a butane-fired smelter can be built. A Diesel-powered one would be even better ... higher adiabatic flame temp. cn

I figured you were right, so I got my bernz-o-matic torch out. Went through $150 worth of fuel cannisters and I haven't been able to melt even a tiny hole in a tin can yet.

How easy did you say this was?

Smelters have forced air induction, surprise. Or Are you saying that the floors between 77 and 85 were really just a large Smelting operation?

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

No, you seem to focus on melting when the actual word should be weakened.
They didn't melt. They weakened.

Edit: I bet that the nail and can were even more malleable.

 

[NoDrama]

No, you seem to focus on melting when the actual word should be weakened.
They didn't melt. They weakened.

FEMA report quote:

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."


Which is more? 500F or 1500F?

If they weakened then why did they weaken first where the fire wasn't at? Bldng 7 collapses from the top, the fires were much further down as was the damage to the facade.

 

[cannabineer]

I figured you were right, so I got my bernz-o-matic torch out. Went through $150 worth of fuel cannisters and I haven't been able to melt even a tiny hole in a tin can yet.

How easy did you say this was?

Smelters have forced air induction, surprise. Or Are you saying that the floors between 77 and 85 were really just a large Smelting operation?

You're being stubborn about the scale thing. I also doubt that you consumed $150 worth of propane in these few minutes. Try steel wool. I guarantee you'll get some outright melting. See the bright orange sparkly things?

But melting is a red herring in this instance. Softening is not melting. Please refer to the post that you quoted before I finished my edit. cn

 

[NoDrama]

You're being stubborn about the scale thing. I also doubt that you consumed $150 worth of propane in these few minutes. Try steel wool. I guarantee you'll get some outright melting. See the bright orange sparkly things?

But melting is a red herring in this instance. Softening is not melting. Please refer to the post that you quoted before I finished my edit. cn

The scale thing? You mean like how 10,000 gallons of fuel can somehow weaken steel to the point of failure? 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel sprayed all over several floors of a building doesn't last long, nor does it add much to the fire.

I worked on oil rigs about 20 years ago. Had a blowout and it caught on fire. Know how long it burned? 22 days. know how long it took for the rig to weaken sufficiently for it to fall down? 40 hours at 2000 cubic feet of natural gas/ minute being violently ejected under pressure and engulfing the entire steel derrick.

40 hours.

22 days later the steel Blow Out Preventer that failed was cut off and the well was extinguished. The BOP wasn't melted at all. Even though nat gas burns at 3500F, plenty hot enough to melt steel right?

Yet we are supposed to believe regular office fires can do the same thing with a much greater amount of steel that is fireproofed and do it in 1/90th the amount of time.

 

[cannabineer]

The scale thing? You mean like how 10,000 gallons of fuel can somehow weaken steel to the point of failure? 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel sprayed all over several floors of a building doesn't last long, nor does it add much to the fire.

I worked on oil rigs about 20 years ago. Had a blowout and it caught on fire. Know how long it burned? 22 days. know how long it took for the rig to weaken sufficiently for it to fall down? 40 hours at 2000 cubic feet of natural gas/ minute being violently ejected under pressure and engulfing the entire steel derrick.

40 hours.

22 days later the steel Blow Out Preventer that failed was cut off and the well was extinguished. The BOP wasn't melted at all. Even though nat gas burns at 3500F, plenty hot enough to melt steel right?

Yet we are supposed to believe regular office fires can do the same thing with a much greater amount of steel that is fireproofed and do it in 1/90th the amount of time.

A cold steel derrick: what is the ratio of typical load to load needed for collapse?
What stunned me about the WTCs is that their rated load was very close to their failure load. A derrick, esp. one unloaded by the series of failures that led to the blowout in the first place (no longer supporting the drill string), has a very large reservoir of overcapacity. And yet a petroleum fire did eventually down it. So a lesser fire that led to much less softening of the structural steel carrying a sh**load of concrete ... is very plausible imo. cn

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

FEMA report quote:

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."


Which is more? 500F or 1500F?

If they weakened then why did they weaken first where the fire wasn't at? Bldng 7 collapses from the top, the fires were much further down as was the damage to the facade.

1500.

What has more mass and structure? 8 story building in test, or 100 story building? Do you think that both of those buildings were built the exact same? And do you think the differences could be a factor?

It was more than damage to the facade. You are underestimating the damage done to that building.

 

[NoDrama]

A cold steel derrick: what is the ratio of typical load to load needed for collapse?
What stunned me about the WTCs is that their rated load was very close to their failure load. A derrick, esp. one unloaded by the series of failures that led to the blowout in the first place (no longer supporting the drill string), has a very large reservoir of overcapacity. And yet a petroleum fire did eventually down it. So a lesser fire that led to much less softening of the structural steel carrying a sh**load of concrete ... is very plausible imo. cn

The Oil rig had 358,000 pounds of string weight on it plus 180 feet of 40" Drill collar weighing 800 lbs a foot when it started, of course 14,000 feet of pipe were tossed out of the hole by the pressure of the gas.