[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

gamolon · Jun 21, 2018

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
Do you understand the difference between the temperature of a fire and the temperature of tons of steel that can conduct heat away from that fire? Two hours ain't squat.

Tell us again how awesome the conduction properties of carbon steel are. I'll even provide yo a link to help you out.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html

gamolon · Jun 21, 2018

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
If you look in Wikipedia for jet fuel burning temperature you find:

Jet fuel was the only thing that burned eh? What about office furnishings, paper, etc. I suppose you think jet fuel is the only thing that burned right?

Quag · Jun 21, 2018

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
You keep bringing this up, but have yet to post a link to any of this evidence that supports your claim. Very telling.

His evidence was scrubbed from the internet, but trust he he saw it there before the Govt types took it away

zyzygy · Jun 21, 2018

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
Jet fuel was the only thing that burned eh? What about office furnishings, paper, etc. I suppose you think jet fuel is the only thing that burned right?

When I light my wood stove the only thing that burns is the firelighter. The wood remains unaffected by the flames.

psikeyhackr · Jun 21, 2018

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
Ok, and how does any of this relates to what happened at the towers?

The 9/11 Affair is about solving the problem of whether or not 1360 foot skyscrapers could be totally destroyed as a consequence of an airliner impact.

One of the issues of the problem is how hot the fire got and how much it could weaken the steel.

The Cardinton fire test was done in in England in 1995. The report I linked to was published in 1998 so any confusion and propagandizing relating to 9/11 is not a factor.

Now that Wikipedia business is really funny. I linked to it years ago for the Open Air Burning temperature was quite low. I have not looked in years so that Adiabatic Temperature was a complete surprise to me. Adiabatic reactions can be created under "controlled conditions" and can barely occur naturally. Look at the difference 300 degrees to almost 1100 degrees. That requires a 100% efficient burn that is not going to happen in an "accidental fire" which will produce carbone monoxide which is what is produced in an inefficient burn.

So I had to wonder when this Wikipedia change occurred. 2014.

How many people even know what adiabatic means? That Cardington information was harder to find than it was years ago. There were YouTube videos about it but now I can't find any.

zyzygy · Jun 21, 2018

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
The 9/11 Affair is about solving the problem of whether or not 1360 foot skyscrapers could be totally destroyed as a consequence of an airliner impact.

One of the issues of the problem is how hot the fire got and how much it could weaken the steel.

The Cardinton fire test was done in in England in 1995. The report I linked to was published in 1998 so any confusion and propagandizing relating to 9/11 is not a factor.

Now that Wikipedia business is really funny. I linked to it years ago for the Open Air Burning temperature was quite low. I have not looked in years so that Adiabatic Temperature was a complete surprise to me. Adiabatic reactions can be created under "controlled conditions" and can barely occur naturally. Look at the difference 300 degrees to almost 1100 degrees. That requires a 100% efficient burn that is not going to happen in an "accidental fire" which will produce carbone monoxide which is what is produced in an inefficient burn.

So I had to wonder when this Wikipedia change occurred. 2014.

How many people even know what adiabatic means? That Cardington information was harder to find than it was years ago. There were YouTube videos about it but now I can't find any.

Ah, more disappearing videos. Now, about your evidence......

Helix · Jun 21, 2018

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

calamity said:
There comes a point when someone just starts looking stupid.

When it comes to Trutherism, that point has long since passed.

Thoreau72 said:
You passed that point years ago sir.

Moderator's Warning:

Both of you, cut it out. Discuss the topic, and leave out the personal snark.

psikeyhackr · Jun 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
Tell us again how awesome the conduction properties of carbon steel are. I'll even provide yo a link to help you out.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html

The top of the hotel began to smoke and soon erupted in a massive blaze that burned for almost six hours.
CCTV Fire Destroys Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Beijing | AdAge China: Breaking News - Ad Age

And how much fire was visible on 9/11. I saw lots of smoke.

9-11 Research: Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire

A bit of a collapse failure. But of course no airplane. So was it airplane or fire? Whatever best disagrees with what I say. LOL

gamolon · Jun 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
The top of the hotel began to smoke and soon erupted in a massive blaze that burned for almost six hours.
CCTV Fire Destroys Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Beijing | AdAge China: Breaking News - Ad Age

And how much fire was visible on 9/11. I saw lots of smoke.

9-11 Research: Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire

A bit of a collapse failure. But of course no airplane. So was it airplane or fire? Whatever best disagrees with what I say. LOL

Are you saying The buildings on your examples above didn’t collapse because of the awesome conductive properties of the steel within!?!?!?

WAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

zyzygy · Jun 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
Are you saying The buildings on your examples above didn’t collapse because of the awesome conductive properties of the steel within!?!?!?

WAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Ha ha indeed. He should leave this to people with some knowledge of the subject.

Maccabee · Jun 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Sure dude, you're a former 911 truther, and Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. :lamo

Believe what you want. I never make up anything about myself. If I make a claim about myself, I make sure it is accurate. I'm not sure how to show you that I was a 9/11 truther but I'm not going to bother. As long as I know who I am/was, I need not to prove it to random people on the internet.

I do appreciate that scintilla of honesty, that you've no experience with pre 2008 cell phones, and I copy your ignorant statement that it wouldn't matter. Ignorance on any given technical issue like physics is a common trait of the gullible and easily led.

And my ignorance was what caused me to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy in the first place.

Sadling · Jun 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I would point to the fact that, as the upper block of the North Tower began its descent, it passed right through the intact lower structure as if it weren't there. What is the explanation for that?

zyzygy · Jun 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sadling said:
I would point to the fact that, as the upper block of the North Tower began its descent, it passed right through the intact lower structure as if it weren't there. What is the explanation for that?

What is your full alternative 911 theory?

zyzygy · Jun 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sadling said:
I would point to the fact that, as the upper block of the North Tower began its descent, it passed right through the intact lower structure as if it weren't there. What is the explanation for that?

You speak as if the buildings were blocks of wood.

Sadling · Jun 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

zyzygy said:
What is your full alternative 911 theory?

Oh, I was just pointing out how the upper block of the Tower passed through the intact lower structure without slowing down--and in fact accelerating. How do you explain that?

mike2810 · Jun 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sadling said:
Oh, I was just pointing out how the upper block of the Tower passed through the intact lower structure without slowing down--and in fact accelerating. How do you explain that?

Is this your evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? That is what this thread is about. It is for those who believe 9/11 was a inside job to present the evidence.

Maccabee · Jun 22, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sadling said:
I would point to the fact that, as the upper block of the North Tower began its descent, it passed right through the intact lower structure as if it weren't there. What is the explanation for that?

Most buildings (especially skyscrapers) are actually mostly air. They are not fortresses.

Maccabee · Jun 22, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sadling said:
Oh, I was just pointing out how the upper block of the Tower passed through the intact lower structure without slowing down--and in fact accelerating. How do you explain that?

Evidence of the tower accelerating?

zyzygy · Jun 22, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sadling said:
Oh, I was just pointing out how the upper block of the Tower passed through the intact lower structure without slowing down--and in fact accelerating. How do you explain that?

Gravity might have had something to do with it.

zyzygy · Jun 22, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sadling said:
Oh, I was just pointing out how the upper block of the Tower passed through the intact lower structure without slowing down--and in fact accelerating. How do you explain that?

Evidence of the acceleration? Do you have any? I know why you are avoiding the topic of this thread. Like all truthers you have no full alternative theory.

zyzygy · Jun 22, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
Is this your evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? That is what this thread is about. It is for those who believe 9/11 was a inside job to present the evidence.

Truthers always derail threads asking for their theory backed up with evidence.

Thoreau72 · Jun 22, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
Believe what you want. I never make up anything about myself. If I make a claim about myself, I make sure it is accurate. I'm not sure how to show you that I was a 9/11 truther but I'm not going to bother. As long as I know who I am/was, I need not to prove it to random people on the internet.

And my ignorance was what caused me to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy in the first place.

It was a conspiracy by all definitions.

The only point in question is just who the conspirators were.

Sadling · Jun 22, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
Most buildings (especially skyscrapers) are actually mostly air. They are not fortresses.

Ah, so it was actually the air that collapsed. I see.

Sadling · Jun 22, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
Evidence of the tower accelerating?

Yeah, evidence of the upper block accelerating right from the get-go. Are you not aware of this?

zyzygy · Jun 22, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sadling said:
Ah, so it was actually the air that collapsed. I see.

Er, no. If you look closely you will see that buildings collapsed.