The Story of 9/11

doc111 said:

Structural steel is NOT a great conductor of heat. The entire structure does NOT act like a giant heat sink preventing the structural members actually exposed to fire from failing! lmfao!!!!! This can be easily demonstrated by taking a small propane torch and heating one end of a tire iron or wrecking bar. See how long it takes to heat up the entire thing simply by exposing one end to the flame. The one end will be glowing red hot and you will be able to hold the opposite end in your hand........I know, because I've tried it! lol!

Click to expand...

Steel (aluminum + iron, not just iron) is a decent conductor of heat, which is partly why it's used. Any fire that occurred would have had to be just that much warmer. Regardless, the uniformity of the collapse could never occur because the damage to the buildings was asymmetrical and fires do not burn symmetrically. Yet there went the building, collapsing into the path of most resistance symmetrically...

We irrefutably had advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor, the Vietnam war was conducted on a lie in the Gulf of Tonkin, and operation Northwoods was conspired to be executed. What reason is there to believe the government may of not been involved in 9/11?

I see the "facts" from both sides, but when I see someone who absolutely finds no reasoning as to why the US government would get involved, I see that person as someone who screams ignorance on a level that is hard to comprehend. There is absolutely nothing hard to comprehend about the US government potentially being involved in a terrorist attack, as they have proven to have conspired terrorism on this country before in the past.

OGEvilgenius said:

Steel (aluminum + iron, not just iron) is a decent conductor of heat, which is partly why it's used. Any fire that occurred would have had to be just that much warmer. Regardless, the uniformity of the collapse could never occur because the damage to the buildings was asymmetrical and fires do not burn symmetrically. Yet there went the building, collapsing into the path of most resistance symmetrically...

Click to expand...

Hmmmm.......Steel=Aluminum + Iron, huh? Is that your final answer?

Steel is an alloy made by combining iron and another element, usually carbon. When carbon is used, its content in the steel is between 0.2% and 2.1% by weight, depending on the grade. Other alloying elements sometimes used are manganese, chromium, vanadium and tungsten.[SUP][1][/SUP]

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel

Steel is not that good of a conductor of heat when compared to other metals:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html

Thermal Conductivity of Metals

Thermal conductivity of some common metals

Sponsored Links

Thermal Conductivity - k - is the quantity of heat transmitted, due to unit temperature gradient, in unit time under steady conditions in a direction normal to a surface of unit area. Thermal Conductivity - k - is used in the Fourier's equation.

• 1 Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft[SUP]2[/SUP]/ft) = 1 Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft) = 1.731 W/(m K) = 1.488 kcal/(h m [SUP]o[/SUP]C)

[TABLE="class: large"]
[TR]
[TD]Metal
[/TD]
[TD]Temperature
- t -
([SUP]o[/SUP]F)
[/TD]
[TD]Thermal Conductivity
- k -
(Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft))
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Admiralty Brass
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]64
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Aluminum, pure
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]118
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]200
[/TD]
[TD]124
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]400
[/TD]
[TD]144
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Aluminum Bronze
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]44
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Antimony
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]10.7
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Beryllium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]126
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Beryllium Copper
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]38
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bismuth
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]4.9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cadmium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]54
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Carbon Steel, max 0.5% C
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]31
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Carbon Steel, max 1.5% C
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]21
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]752
[/TD]
[TD]19
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2192
[/TD]
[TD]17
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cartridge brass (UNS C26000)
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]69.4
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cast Iron, gray
[/TD]
[TD]70
[/TD]
[TD]27 - 46
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Chromium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]52
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cobalt
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]40
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Copper, pure
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]223
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]572
[/TD]
[TD]213
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1112
[/TD]
[TD]204
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Copper bronze (75% Cu, 25% Sn)
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]15
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Copper brass (70% Cu, 30% Zi)
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]64
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cupronickel
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]17
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gold
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]182
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hastelloy B
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hastelloy C
[/TD]
[TD]70
[/TD]
[TD]5
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Inconel
[/TD]
[TD]70 - 212
[/TD]
[TD]8.4
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Incoloy
[/TD]
[TD]32 - 212
[/TD]
[TD]6.8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iridium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]85
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iron, nodular pearlitic
[/TD]
[TD]212
[/TD]
[TD]18
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iron, pure
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]42
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]572
[/TD]
[TD]32
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1832
[/TD]
[TD]20
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iron, wrought
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]34
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lead
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]20
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]572
[/TD]
[TD]17.2
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Manganese Bronze
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]61
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Magnesium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]91.9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mercury
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]4.85
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Molybdenum
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]81
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Monel
[/TD]
[TD]32 - 212
[/TD]
[TD]15
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Nickel
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]52
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Nickel Wrought
[/TD]
[TD]32 - 212
[/TD]
[TD]35 - 52
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Niobium (Columbium)
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]30
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Osmium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]35
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Phosphor bronze (10% Sn, UNS C52400)
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]28.9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Platinum
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]42
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Plutonium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]4.6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Potassium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]57.8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Red Brass
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]92
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rhodium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]86.7
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Selenium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]0.3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Silicon
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]48.3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Silver, pure
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]235
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sodium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]77.5
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stainless Steel
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]7-26
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tantalum
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]31
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Thorium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]24
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tin
[/TD]
[TD]32
[/TD]
[TD]36 - 39
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Titanium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]11 - 13
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tungsten
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]94 - 100
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uranium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]14
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Vanadium
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]35
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wrought Carbon Steel
[/TD]
[TD]32
[/TD]
[TD]34
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yellow Brass
[/TD]
[TD]68
[/TD]
[TD]67
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Zinc
[/TD]
[TD]-
[/TD]
[TD]67
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Zirconium
[/TD]
[TD]-
[/TD]
[TD]145
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

• T([SUP]o[/SUP]C) = 5/9[T([SUP]o[/SUP]F) - 32]
• 1 Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft[SUP]2[/SUP]/ft) = 1 Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft) = 1.731 W/(m K) = 1.488 kcal/(h m [SUP]o[/SUP]C)

kpmarine said:

Could you please explain to me how that explains anything about structure fire? That's single point for a few minutes vs.multiple floors of a building engulfed in flames for 50+ minutes. Plus the fact that I doubt your tire iron was wrapped in all of the other stuff that steel support was, and I doubt you actually placed a load on it. You would be better off finding at what temp your tire iron folds under a load when heated. Still not accurate, but it would be closer to what actually was the case.

Click to expand...

It doesn't explain anything about "structure fire". What, specifically would you like to know? I guess I misunderstood your statment. He was saying that the structural members in the towers would've acted as large "heat sinks" (meaning that there would be no way possible to get any ONE POINT of the structure hot enough to fail. My tire iron experiment was simply to demonstrate that you CAN heat up a section of steel and get it glowing hot while holding the other end in your hand.) All metals are good conductors of heat when compared to most non-metallic objects. However, steel is not that great of a conductor of heat when compared to other metals and I can definitively tell you that I've seen structural steel failures in "ordinary fires". It can, and DOES happen is all I'm saying. It's not "impossible" like some others on this board are attempting to suggest.

OGEvilgenius said:

You've proven quite emphatically you do not understand anything that you talk about.

Thermite residue has been found and verified by more than one source btw. You are way too emotionally invested in this to look at it objectively and you prove it with most of your arguments. You dismiss points you don't like as ridiculous (even though they are true) and ignore the motive and suspicious behavior of US government leadership at the time completely.

Click to expand...

lol!

Ok, so everything I've said is complete b.s then? Well, then I guess you don't have to respond to me after this *Cough* Mr. "Steel=Aluminum+Iron" *Cough*. lmfao!!!!

Thermite has NOT been conclusively shown to be at the WTC site. There has been a few very common elements found in some of the dust samples (mainly sulfur, iron oxide [rust] and aluminum) which are also present in thermite. This proves nothing. These are VERY COMMON ELEMENTS!!!!!! Instead of debating you on this particular issue, I am just going to post a link. I'm sure you will dismiss it just like you did me and my 15 years of experience in this field. My friend, I've spent the last decade researching, debating and talking to experts in various fields. The VAST majority of firefighters and experts agree that the conspiracy "evidence" is shaky at best and most of the time deceptive. Why? I honestly can't tell you what motivates some people to further this type of misinformation. What's more, I can't figure out for the life of me why anyone would ignore experts who bring valid knowledge and experience to the table. I have NO interest in misleading anyone. Believe me, if I thought for ONE SECOND the govt. or anyone else besides al qaeda had something to do with this, I would be at the front of the line demanding heads on a platter! I lost 343 brothers that day (See my signature below). We all lost something that day! I have no interest in squelching the truth.



http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Doc, you nor anyone else would have the slightest of an effect, if you demanded heads on a platter. Some have already tried on the "smaller" issues regarding 9/11, and they've all gotten nowhere.

Heads should be a platter over Pearl Harbor and even more so, the Gulf of Tonkin. Generally, no heads get put on platters, when the government is doing the dirty work. That's how it will always be.

The Vietnam war via the Gulf of Tonkin made 9/11 look like a walk in the park, and the Gulf of Tonkin was confirmed as a corrupt incident. Why would the government be penalized if 9/11 was ever tied to corruption? They wouldn't.

doc111 said:

It doesn't explain anything about "structure fire". What, specifically would you like to know? I guess I misunderstood your statment. He was saying that the structural members in the towers would've acted as large "heat sinks" (meaning that there would be no way possible to get any ONE POINT of the structure hot enough to fail. My tire iron experiment was simply to demonstrate that you CAN heat up a section of steel and get it glowing hot while holding the other end in your hand.) All metals are good conductors of heat when compared to most non-metallic objects. However, steel is not that great of a conductor of heat when compared to other metals and I can definitively tell you that I've seen structural steel failures in "ordinary fires". It can, and DOES happen is all I'm saying. It's not "impossible" like some others on this board are attempting to suggest.


lol!

Ok, so everything I've said is complete b.s then? Well, then I guess you don't have to respond to me after this *Cough* Mr. "Steel=Aluminum+Iron" *Cough*. lmfao!!!!

Thermite has NOT been conclusively shown to be at the WTC site. There has been a few very common elements found in some of the dust samples (mainly sulfur, iron oxide [rust] and aluminum) which are also present in thermite. This proves nothing. These are VERY COMMON ELEMENTS!!!!!! Instead of debating you on this particular issue, I am just going to post a link. I'm sure you will dismiss it just like you did me and my 15 years of experience in this field. My friend, I've spent the last decade researching, debating and talking to experts in various fields. The VAST majority of firefighters and experts agree that the conspiracy "evidence" is shaky at best and most of the time deceptive. Why? I honestly can't tell you what motivates some people to further this type of misinformation. What's more, I can't figure out for the life of me why anyone would ignore experts who bring valid knowledge and experience to the table. I have NO interest in misleading anyone. Believe me, if I thought for ONE SECOND the govt. or anyone else besides al qaeda had something to do with this, I would be at the front of the line demanding heads on a platter! I lost 343 brothers that day (See my signature below). We all lost something that day! I have no interest in squelching the truth.



http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Click to expand...

Apologies, we are on the same page more or less. I just misunderstood your point initially. I think the reason people cling to these things is because people don't like to think that bad, scary people can attack at any time for the most trivial of reasons (We gave middle easterner's so many reasons, it isn't even funny.). It removes a sense of control. It's alot more empowering to blame something you know than it is to accept that we aren't safe in some little bubble. When that little bubble of safety pops, you get stuff like this. I do find it funny that the same US Gov. that gets blamed for 9/11 can't balance a budget, avoid sex scandals, cover up Gitmo scandals, or effectively manage an education system; yet, they could somehow pull off the most devastating terrorist attack in this country's history, and then cover it up so well that the GP has no clue. I'd bank on a bunch of fanatics being the likely culprit, they have a bit of practice in the hijacking/blowing shit up department. Hell, this wasn't even the first attack on the WTC by radical Muslim folks. When you find fingerprints, dna, motive and a murder weapon that can all be linked to the same person; you don't go trying to find another person to blame for a crime. I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not trying to mislead anyone, just haven't seen anything that equates to more than speculation backed by unproven theories. If a conspiracy can be proven, I'll supply the rope myself.

Don't like that bad scary people can attack at random? Yeah, because it's so much less scary to believe your elected officials are capable of murdering thousands to justify whatever agenda they have.

I think the reason people cling to your point of view is because the alternative is extremely scary and they don't realize that virtually all world leaders all through history have been sociopaths, and in fact view political leaders more like parents rather than the extremely dangerous people they are and almost always were (see: History). Bad people will always end up in positions of power because they are ruthless and don't care, at all. Good people? They won't be ruthless, and they do care and generally don't even want to be in positions of extreme power, rather they would prefer to be happy with their families earning a living.

Bush & Co. already have emphatically proven they are sociopaths and are not good people so many times over. Yet this is just too far.... yeah, right.

Buildings don't collapse into the path of most resistance with complete symmetry from very asymmetrical damage. It's a completely ridiculous thing to suggest.

doc111 said:

Hmmmm.......Steel=Aluminum + Iron, huh? Is that your final answer?





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel

Steel is not that good of a conductor of heat when compared to other metals:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html

Thermal Conductivity of Metals

Thermal conductivity of some common metals

Sponsored Links

Thermal Conductivity - k - is the quantity of heat transmitted, due to unit temperature gradient, in unit time under steady conditions in a direction normal to a surface of unit area. Thermal Conductivity - k - is used in the Fourier's equation.

• 1 Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft[SUP]2[/SUP]/ft) = 1 Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft) = 1.731 W/(m K) = 1.488 kcal/(h m [SUP]o[/SUP]C)

[TABLE="class: large"]
[TR]
[TD]Metal[/TD]
[TD]Temperature
- t -
([SUP]o[/SUP]F)[/TD]
[TD]Thermal Conductivity
- k -
(Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft))[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Admiralty Brass[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Aluminum, pure[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]118[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]200[/TD]
[TD]124[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]400[/TD]
[TD]144[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Aluminum Bronze[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]44[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Antimony[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]10.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Beryllium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]126[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Beryllium Copper[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]38[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bismuth[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]4.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cadmium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Carbon Steel, max 0.5% C[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]31[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Carbon Steel, max 1.5% C[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]752[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2192[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cartridge brass (UNS C26000)[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]69.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cast Iron, gray[/TD]
[TD]70[/TD]
[TD]27 - 46[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Chromium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cobalt[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Copper, pure[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]223[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]572[/TD]
[TD]213[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1112[/TD]
[TD]204[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Copper bronze (75% Cu, 25% Sn)[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Copper brass (70% Cu, 30% Zi)[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cupronickel[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gold[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]182[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hastelloy B[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hastelloy C[/TD]
[TD]70[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Inconel[/TD]
[TD]70 - 212[/TD]
[TD]8.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Incoloy[/TD]
[TD]32 - 212[/TD]
[TD]6.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iridium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]85[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iron, nodular pearlitic[/TD]
[TD]212[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iron, pure[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]42[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]572[/TD]
[TD]32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1832[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iron, wrought[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lead[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]572[/TD]
[TD]17.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Manganese Bronze[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]61[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Magnesium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]91.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mercury[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]4.85[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Molybdenum[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]81[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Monel[/TD]
[TD]32 - 212[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Nickel[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Nickel Wrought[/TD]
[TD]32 - 212[/TD]
[TD]35 - 52[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Niobium (Columbium)[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Osmium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Phosphor bronze (10% Sn, UNS C52400)[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]28.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Platinum[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]42[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Plutonium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]4.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Potassium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]57.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Red Brass[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]92[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rhodium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]86.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Selenium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]0.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Silicon[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]48.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Silver, pure[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]235[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sodium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]77.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stainless Steel[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]7-26[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tantalum[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]31[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Thorium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tin[/TD]
[TD]32[/TD]
[TD]36 - 39[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Titanium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]11 - 13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tungsten[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]94 - 100[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uranium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Vanadium[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wrought Carbon Steel[/TD]
[TD]32[/TD]
[TD]34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Yellow Brass[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]67[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Zinc[/TD]
[TD]-[/TD]
[TD]67[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Zirconium[/TD]
[TD]-[/TD]
[TD]145[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

• T([SUP]o[/SUP]C) = 5/9[T([SUP]o[/SUP]F) - 32]
• 1 Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft[SUP]2[/SUP]/ft) = 1 Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft) = 1.731 W/(m K) = 1.488 kcal/(h m [SUP]o[/SUP]C)

Click to expand...

Posting stuff for the sheer sake of it I see. That was my mistake, it was late and I confused thermite and steel in my head, so apologies. Steel is still a decent conductor though and behaves extremely well in fire, which is why it forms the frame of every major skyscraper that exists.

OGEvilgenius said:

Posting stuff for the sheer sake of it I see. That was my mistake, it was late and I confused thermite and steel in my head, so apologies. Steel is still a decent conductor though and behaves extremely well in fire, which is why it forms the frame of every major skyscraper that exists.

Click to expand...

I figured you misspoke, but you were basically saying I have no clue what I'm talking about. On the contrary. If I don't know about something, I keep my mouth shut. I was considered an expert in building collapse before 9/11, so I found your statement a little ironic. You should always be careful when you attempt to belittle someone else and make sure EVERYTHING you say is absolutely correct, lest you like like the fool.

I realize that chart is a bit tough to read, but I was trying to show that steel is not such a good conductor of heat as compared to other metals, so I wasn't just "posting stuff for the sheer sake of it."

OGEvilgenius said:

Don't like that bad scary people can attack at random? Yeah, because it's so much less scary to believe your elected officials are capable of murdering thousands to justify whatever agenda they have.

I think the reason people cling to your point of view is because the alternative is extremely scary and they don't realize that virtually all world leaders all through history have been sociopaths, and in fact view political leaders more like parents rather than the extremely dangerous people they are and almost always were (see: History). Bad people will always end up in positions of power because they are ruthless and don't care, at all. Good people? They won't be ruthless, and they do care and generally don't even want to be in positions of extreme power, rather they would prefer to be happy with their families earning a living.

Bush & Co. already have emphatically proven they are sociopaths and are not good people so many times over. Yet this is just too far.... yeah, right.

Buildings don't collapse into the path of most resistance with complete symmetry from very asymmetrical damage. It's a completely ridiculous thing to suggest.

Click to expand...

The collapse appeared symmetrical mostly because of the angles and distances most of the video was shot from. Those buildings didn't collapse "symmetrically". They behaved pretty much as one (with engineering, building construction and collapse knowledge) would expect. Buildings don't typically topple over to one side. At least not when they are constructed in this manner. Yes, I'm sure someone will post some pics showing some reinforced concrete buildings that fell over on their sides in earthquakes. This is not the same thing! I realize I'm probably not going to convince you, and that's ok with me. I just hope you realize that you sound like a broken conspiracy theorist record! Where did your engineering or building collapse expertise come from again? They have been spouting these SAME EXACT THINGS for a decade now and STILL haven't come up with a shred of proof or even any REAL evidence that what they say is true. We all know there are some strange things that happened surrounding the events of 9/11. None of these things is proof of anything unless you can somehow tie them to 9/11 (especially things like the missing "trillions", or put options, etc.). Y'all talk about how Bush didn't have the sense to come in out of the rain, but somehow he and his minions managed to perpetrate the greatest conspiracy of all time! That alone should tell you how ridiculous the notion of our govt. perpetrating such a thing is! Yes, I said ridiculous! lol!

InCognition said:

Doc, you nor anyone else would have the slightest of an effect, if you demanded heads on a platter. Some have already tried on the "smaller" issues regarding 9/11, and they've all gotten nowhere.

Heads should be a platter over Pearl Harbor and even more so, the Gulf of Tonkin. Generally, no heads get put on platters, when the government is doing the dirty work. That's how it will always be.

The Vietnam war via the Gulf of Tonkin made 9/11 look like a walk in the park, and the Gulf of Tonkin was confirmed as a corrupt incident. Why would the government be penalized if 9/11 was ever tied to corruption? They wouldn't.

Click to expand...

The Gulf of Tonkin wasn't perpetrated against our own country and citizens. Not the same thing. Trust me, if it could be proven that this was a conspiracy, you would have hundreds of thousands of angry firemen and probably police too. Gulf of Tonkin didn't occur on U.S. soil. This incident did! 3,000 people were murdered simply for getting out of bed and going to work that morning. If it was discovered that the govt. had anything to do with this, I believe it would mean civil war. Sorry, I just don't buy it. Show me some REAL evidence and perhaps I will change my mind. I don't believe such proof exists or we would've probably seen it by now.

Obviously nobody is going to prove it either way, the official story is lacking and so are all the conspiracy theories, if they were substantiated then there just wouldn't be a debate. I think to believe any side of this story with unyielding conviction is wrong. In my opinion I don't think that the entire U.S. government had some giant plot, I think thats pretty unlikely. At the same time I definitely don't think it was Osama Bin Laden. I think its more likely another government was respsponsible and that our government just capitalized on this. New evidence is coming to light of Saudi Government involvement lately, multiple U.S senators are accusing the Saudi Government of funding 9/11 and it doesn't suprise me seeing as all of the hijackers were of saudi blood.

As I wrote earlier in this thread

Deprave said:

Governments and ideologies themselves have no moral or philosophical basis...they are immoral and unjust, it is their very essence, to treat humans as animals is just plain wrong any way you shake it. Government is kind of an exscuse for violence in of itself. Regardless I am not convinced "The government" in its entirety would be to blame for this or would have conspired this, likely a group involved with a government, afterall government is a giant monopoly of power that isn't ever held accountable for its actions therefore attracts evil people like flys to shit, Lets face it your pretty bad at being evil if you don't crave giant monopolies of power and the abillity to not be held accountable for your evil deeds, you should probably hang it up. As more evidence surfaces it is on trail now that the saudi government in particular funded this little operation. I most certainly don't buy for one second that it was Osama Bin Laden lol

Click to expand...

doc111 said:

The collapse appeared symmetrical mostly because of the angles and distances most of the video was shot from. Those buildings didn't collapse "symmetrically". They behaved pretty much as one (with engineering, building construction and collapse knowledge) would expect. Buildings don't typically topple over to one side. At least not when they are constructed in this manner. Yes, I'm sure someone will post some pics showing some reinforced concrete buildings that fell over on their sides in earthquakes. This is not the same thing! I realize I'm probably not going to convince you, and that's ok with me. I just hope you realize that you sound like a broken conspiracy theorist record! Where did your engineering or building collapse expertise come from again? They have been spouting these SAME EXACT THINGS for a decade now and STILL haven't come up with a shred of proof or even any REAL evidence that what they say is true. We all know there are some strange things that happened surrounding the events of 9/11. None of these things is proof of anything unless you can somehow tie them to 9/11 (especially things like the missing "trillions", or put options, etc.). Y'all talk about how Bush didn't have the sense to come in out of the rain, but somehow he and his minions managed to perpetrate the greatest conspiracy of all time! That alone should tell you how ridiculous the notion of our govt. perpetrating such a thing is! Yes, I said ridiculous! lol!

Click to expand...

You're trying to claim the video evidence is deceptive. It's not. You have nothing. There have been large flaming buildings during earthquakes that don't fall over at all. And if they were going to, they would have fallen sideways in some fashion, because it is completely absurd to suggest buildings will fall into the path of most resistance and that the resistance can give away instantly and symmetrically. They collapsed at the speed a rock would fall if dropped. There was no resistance from something split seconds earlier was providing the necessary resistance to remain standing as they had since the planes impacted.

If the NIST released their models they would be ripped to shreds with extreme ease. They will not.

It doesn't take an engineering degree to realize the whole thing is beyond absurd. Explain how the buildings offered no resistance on any level at all. You can't reasonably explain it without introducing other elements to the situation unless you want to ignore the first law of thermodynamics and suggest that a system clearly functioning and maintaining it's structural integrity instantly fails without a tremendous input of energy. Gradual failure looks nothing like what we saw that day. Not even close.

doc111 said:

The Gulf of Tonkin wasn't perpetrated against our own country and citizens. Not the same thing. Trust me, if it could be proven that this was a conspiracy, you would have hundreds of thousands of angry firemen and probably police too. Gulf of Tonkin didn't occur on U.S. soil. This incident did! 3,000 people were murdered simply for getting out of bed and going to work that morning. If it was discovered that the govt. had anything to do with this, I believe it would mean civil war. Sorry, I just don't buy it. Show me some REAL evidence and perhaps I will change my mind. I don't believe such proof exists or we would've probably seen it by now.

Click to expand...

You need a new investigation as the original investigation was a clear and obvious white wash. The Presidents testimony was taken in secret, is classified and was not taken under oath. What the fuck?

Meanwhile they claim they need to know everything about us - just to keep us safe. But it would be dangerous for the public to hear their testimony regarding this event? I'm not buying. I'm sure it would be dangerous for them to have it released however. The commission seriously considered inditing Pentagon and FAA officials for obstruction of justice.

WASHINGTON -- The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.
Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in "Without Precedent" that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani _ and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it.

....

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," the book states.

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401026.html

doc111 said:

The Gulf of Tonkin wasn't perpetrated against our own country and citizens. Not the same thing. Trust me, if it could be proven that this was a conspiracy, you would have hundreds of thousands of angry firemen and probably police too. Gulf of Tonkin didn't occur on U.S. soil. This incident did! 3,000 people were murdered simply for getting out of bed and going to work that morning. If it was discovered that the govt. had anything to do with this, I believe it would mean civil war. Sorry, I just don't buy it. Show me some REAL evidence and perhaps I will change my mind. I don't believe such proof exists or we would've probably seen it by now.

Click to expand...

A wise man once told me,(my grandpa): "never blindly trust a man that asks/asserts to be trusted."

OGEvilgenius said:

Don't like that bad scary people can attack at random? Yeah, because it's so much less scary to believe your elected officials are capable of murdering thousands to justify whatever agenda they have.

I think the reason people cling to your point of view is because the alternative is extremely scary and they don't realize that virtually all world leaders all through history have been sociopaths, and in fact view political leaders more like parents rather than the extremely dangerous people they are and almost always were (see: History). Bad people will always end up in positions of power because they are ruthless and don't care, at all. Good people? They won't be ruthless, and they do care and generally don't even want to be in positions of extreme power, rather they would prefer to be happy with their families earning a living.

Bush & Co. already have emphatically proven they are sociopaths and are not good people so many times over. Yet this is just too far.... yeah, right.

Buildings don't collapse into the path of most resistance with complete symmetry from very asymmetrical damage. It's a completely ridiculous thing to suggest.

Click to expand...

You can vote out corrupt officials; you can't do anything about a suicide bomber, he's a fanatic. That was the fear factor I spoke of. I can put the fear of death into a politician, not so much a man who is willing to take me out with him. A man that thinks he is dying for something is more frightening than a man who is in it for tangible gains, at least in my experience. I understand that most all people in power are there because they don't care who they step on. However, you still maintain a semblance of control in respect to elected officials. Your reasoning here is flawed though. You state that many politicians have been inherently dangerous. However, this does not prove that elected officials are all inherently evil. Past evidence doesn't apply to a system where something as variable as people are involved.. Just because hitler and stalin were bad, does not prove that our next president will be bad. Just because we have 5 bad presidents in a row, doesn't mean the 6th will be. What you are does not define who you are. Your sweeping generalizations don't change that.

Just because you feel "Bush & Co." would have gone that far, doesn't mean they would. Unless you have access to psych records that ordinary folks don't to base that "sociopath" statement on, of course. You make the assumption that just because the potential is there, that someone took it.

All the video footage I saw showed the collapse being reasonable, given the hole the plane made. Also, it seems to collapse inward; I'm no expert, but for a building that has it's support on the exterior, that seems logical. In what way is it ridiculous? I may be missing something, but I don't see a glaringly obvious issue here.

I'm more than happy to accept ideas outside my own. However; facts, not assumptions based on what you think is true, would be appreciated. I'm not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to point out the logical flaws in your argument, and help you see how someone who isn't immediately accepting of your viewpoint would react if they used critical thinking to evaluate your statements. You can't expect me to take your statements at face value, we don't have the rapport for that. If you are speaking from the position of the person who knows what I do not, some supplementary info would be helpful to your case. Currently, you just expect me to take you at your word. Unfortunately, your word is no good to me. Once again; nothing personal, but I don't know you from Adam.

I'm more likely to die in a car accident or be struck by lightning. I am not scared of terrorists and it's a really ill formed suggestion.

You haven't pointed out any logical flaws. Hitler, Stalin? There are thousands of others much like them. There are hundreds of people in power right now, in this world, just as evil (proven by their acts). You just don't hear about them as much because they weren't in positions of great power.

I'll try to make it really simple for you as far as the buildings are concerned:

The buildings are designed to support themselves. Everything surrounding the buildings not a part of the structure is not. Therefore a logical collapse would have occurred into the path where there is no structure offering tremendous resistance.

Instead what happened is the structure collapsed in on itself at a free fall pace indicating the entire structure failed at an extremely rapid rate after standing strong for hours. And they fell in an extremely uniform fashion too. The symmetry was excellent. Yet the damage and fires were extremely asymmetrical.

It's that simple.

deprave said:

Obviously nobody is going to prove it either way, the official story is lacking and so are all the conspiracy theories, if they were substantiated then there just wouldn't be a debate. I think to believe any side of this story with unyielding conviction is wrong. In my opinion I don't think that the entire U.S. government had some giant plot, I think thats pretty unlikely. At the same time I definitely don't think it was Osama Bin Laden. I think its more likely another government was respsponsible and that our government just capitalized on this. New evidence is coming to light of Saudi Government involvement lately, multiple U.S senators are accusing the Saudi Government of funding 9/11 and it doesn't suprise me seeing as all of the hijackers were of saudi blood.

As I wrote earlier in this thread

Click to expand...

This, I like. I am totally okay with speculation and personal belief of something. It's like a dick though; try to stick it down my throat, and I will take issue. I fall into a similar category to you, I think. I am not entirely bought into either idea. I find it hard to swallow that the country with the most impressive intelligence resources in the world didn't see this coming. However, I feel giving the people that run our shit credit for planning this would be overestimating their abilities. I don't buy into Osama being the mastermind either. He may have been some sort of accessory, but I don't think he could have pulled this off. Plus the way his death and subsequent burial went down never sat right with me. Plus, given our (The US') level of meddling in the middle east for the better part of a century at least, can't be engendering any desire to ship us gift baskets. So a foreign country seems rather plausible, all things considered. Sadly, it will never be definitively proven in my lifetime I'd bet.

OGEvilgenius said:

I'm more likely to die in a car accident or be struck by lightning. I am not scared of terrorists and it's a really ill formed suggestion.

You haven't pointed out any logical flaws. Hitler, Stalin? There are thousands of others much like them. There are hundreds of people in power right now, in this world, just as evil (proven by their acts). You just don't hear about them as much because they weren't in positions of great power.

I'll try to make it really simple for you as far as the buildings are concerned:

The buildings are designed to support themselves. Everything surrounding the buildings not a part of the structure is not. Therefore a logical collapse would have occurred into the path where there is no structure offering tremendous resistance.

Instead what happened is the structure collapsed in on itself at a free fall pace indicating the entire structure failed at an extremely rapid rate after standing strong for hours. And they fell in an extremely uniform fashion too. The symmetry was excellent. Yet the damage and fires were extremely asymmetrical.

It's that simple.

Click to expand...

As to the fear bit, that's entirely opinon based. I will admit that is entirely my opinion, and may not be held by all. In that realm, your lack of concern regarding terrorism is entirely valid.

Any time you use prior elected officials as an example, that is a huge logical flaw. If you are elected, that is based on a vote, which means the general population at the time decides that. Due to the fact that an election is a (theoretically) uncontrollable outcome based on the opinion of a constantly changing sample of people, elected officials can't follow a provable trend. You have way too many variables. Good people are elected as well, therefore you can't declare being in a position of power a defining indicator of a proclivity towards evil.

Regarding your issues with the collapse, can you refer me to something where someone with a degree relevant to the collapse aggrees with that? Preferably that breaks it down in a easy to undertsand way for those who have no degree in structural engineering.

doc111 said:

The collapse appeared symmetrical mostly because of the angles and distances most of the video was shot from. Those buildings didn't collapse "symmetrically". They behaved pretty much as one (with engineering, building construction and collapse knowledge) would expect. Buildings don't typically topple over to one side. At least not when they are constructed in this manner. Yes, I'm sure someone will post some pics showing some reinforced concrete buildings that fell over on their sides in earthquakes. This is not the same thing! I realize I'm probably not going to convince you, and that's ok with me. I just hope you realize that you sound like a broken conspiracy theorist record! Where did your engineering or building collapse expertise come from again? They have been spouting these SAME EXACT THINGS for a decade now and STILL haven't come up with a shred of proof or even any REAL evidence that what they say is true. We all know there are some strange things that happened surrounding the events of 9/11. None of these things is proof of anything unless you can somehow tie them to 9/11 (especially things like the missing "trillions", or put options, etc.). Y'all talk about how Bush didn't have the sense to come in out of the rain, but somehow he and his minions managed to perpetrate the greatest conspiracy of all time! That alone should tell you how ridiculous the notion of our govt. perpetrating such a thing is! Yes, I said ridiculous! lol!

Click to expand...

You need to review your axial beam buckling. Only one side/corner of the tower incurred a direct structural failure from the impact. If this was the only failure then the top of the tower should rock off leavening the remainder of the tower intact.