• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Explosions in Basement?

ThoughtEx. said:
So far, people have asked for links, and tried to counter facts with things easily not proven.

Like the guy I was quoting not knowing the basement refers to an underground complex that connects all the towers. No bias needed for that.

Now, once someone tries to counter the supposition portion of my post, and then I say nuh uh, I'm not listening then you can make all the irony jokes you want.

Til then, all you've done is ask me why my opinion is more valid than anyone elses. And made an inaccacurate stab at an irony joke.
Click to expand...

And your alternative 911 theory is what? Or don't you not have got a theory?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Then you missed my first post. And are jumping in mid argument. That's not on me, that's on you.
Click to expand...

I saw the post with your vague claims. Some proof of your claims, whatever they are, would be welcome. Are you a controlled demolition truther? Do you agree with Thoreaux that mini-nukes were used? Are you a no-planer?
 
Failures of the Theory
Some investigators have suggested that basement bombs by themselves, or in combination with failure scenarios of official theories, brought down the Twin Towers. These suggestions are not tenable in light of the observed features of the collapses. Bombs that destroyed the bases of the Towers' core columns would not cause the Towers to collapse in the rapid top-down manner observed, nor to totally collapse in any fashion. The core structures were surrounded by the floor diaphragms, which were in turn surrounded by load-bearing perimeter columns. The obliteration of a few stories of core columns just above the foundation may have led to the entire core structures, from the basement to the roof, falling several stories before coming to rest on the foundations. That would have damaged most of the floor diaphragms, and may have even caused some kind of perimeter wall failures. However, such damage would have occurred nearly simultaneously from the bottom to the top of each Tower. It would not have looked anything like the observed methodical destruction starting from the crash zones and proceeding down the Towers.

The combination of basement bombs with the dubious truss failure scenario also cannot account for the destruction observed for all of the following reasons:

Most of the concrete in the Towers was apparently pulverized to dust the consistency of talcum powder in the air. That required far more energy than floors falling a few feet or even a thousand feet.
The mushrooming of the Towers into dust clouds three to five times the diameter of each Tower before the destruction reached the ground cannot be explained by the falling of floors and damage to the core foundations.
The dust evolving from each Tower before it reached the ground was already several times the Tower's original volume. Only huge inputs of heat in portions of the building above the ground can account for that.
This South Tower collapse video shows most of the block of stories above the impact zone breaking up before it started to fall. The steel columns of the perimeter wall wouldn't simply shatter due to a lack of support from the core and floors.
In addition to all of the above, all theories that basement bombs were instrumental in the destruction of the Towers are directly contradicted by the accounts of members on Ladder Company 6 who survived the destruction of both Towers trapped in the North Tower's B stairway.

9-11 Research: Basement Bombs
 
zyzygy said:
I saw the post with your vague claims. Some proof of your claims, whatever they are, would be welcome. Are you a controlled demolition truther? Do you agree with Thoreaux that mini-nukes were used? Are you a no-planer?
Click to expand...

vague? They addressed the key factors of the official story.

Jet fuel ignited offices and the material supposedly burned hot enough to melt steel hot enough to cut precise lines through beams just like thermite.

The vague facts that counter that. Jet Fuel doesn't burn hot enough, even when mixed with office supplies.

This is meant to make you research how how jet fuel burns, and what the melting point of steel is, and so forth so you can then form your own opinion. Its not meant as a this is what I think is the cause, and proves my bull**** hypothesis is right and accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's more like you have a hardline theory you want to defend without presenting, and because you can't in fact find anything untrue about my "vague" statements can't attack reasoning behind my speculation. And because I put it forth as supposition, and not as a theory which entails a level of certainty no one here should ever feel entitled to, can easily change it to suit my needs.

Which means you're caught between a rock and a hard place, and can only attack and try to position me into defending someone else's bull****.

Hah.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
vague? They addressed the key factors of the official story.

Jet fuel ignited offices and the material supposedly burned hot enough to melt steel hot enough to cut precise lines through beams just like thermite.

The vague facts that counter that. Jet Fuel doesn't burn hot enough, even when mixed with office supplies.

This is meant to make you research how how jet fuel burns, and what the melting point of steel is, and so forth so you can then form your own opinion. Its not meant as a this is what I think is the cause, and proves my bull**** hypothesis is right and accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's more like you have a hardline theory you want to defend without presenting, and because you can't in fact find anything untrue about my "vague" statements can't attack reasoning behind my speculation. And because I put it forth as supposition, and not as a theory which entails a level of certainty no one here should ever feel entitled to, can easily change it to suit my needs.

Which means you're caught between a rock and a hard place, and can only attack and try to position me into defending someone else's bull****.

Hah.
Click to expand...
The melted steel has been explained to you. Why don't you answer questions? What brought the buildings down? Controlled demolitions?
 
"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: 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."

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Center - Debunking the Myths
 
zyzygy said:
Failures of the Theory
Some investigators have suggested that basement bombs by themselves, or in combination with failure scenarios of official theories, brought down the Twin Towers. These suggestions are not tenable in light of the observed features of the collapses. Bombs that destroyed the bases of the Towers' core columns would not cause the Towers to collapse in the rapid top-down manner observed, nor to totally collapse in any fashion. The core structures were surrounded by the floor diaphragms, which were in turn surrounded by load-bearing perimeter columns. The obliteration of a few stories of core columns just above the foundation may have led to the entire core structures, from the basement to the roof, falling several stories before coming to rest on the foundations. That would have damaged most of the floor diaphragms, and may have even caused some kind of perimeter wall failures. However, such damage would have occurred nearly simultaneously from the bottom to the top of each Tower. It would not have looked anything like the observed methodical destruction starting from the crash zones and proceeding down the Towers.

The combination of basement bombs with the dubious truss failure scenario also cannot account for the destruction observed for all of the following reasons:

Most of the concrete in the Towers was apparently pulverized to dust the consistency of talcum powder in the air. That required far more energy than floors falling a few feet or even a thousand feet.
The mushrooming of the Towers into dust clouds three to five times the diameter of each Tower before the destruction reached the ground cannot be explained by the falling of floors and damage to the core foundations.
The dust evolving from each Tower before it reached the ground was already several times the Tower's original volume. Only huge inputs of heat in portions of the building above the ground can account for that.
This South Tower collapse video shows most of the block of stories above the impact zone breaking up before it started to fall. The steel columns of the perimeter wall wouldn't simply shatter due to a lack of support from the core and floors.
In addition to all of the above, all theories that basement bombs were instrumental in the destruction of the Towers are directly contradicted by the accounts of members on Ladder Company 6 who survived the destruction of both Towers trapped in the North Tower's B stairway.

9-11 Research: Basement Bombs
Click to expand...

Stating that jet fuel leaking into the basement couldn't cause the collapse of tower 7, or speculating it was controlled demolition isn't stating bombs could.

Also, you need to stop putting alot of stock in the videos. Not because of manipulation. But because of framerates. Cameras take a bunch of photos really fast. Most commercial cameras, like security cameras and cell phone cameras in 2001 have a very low framerate capture. You could literally be missing thousands of frames.

First thing you always question is the evidence gathering methods. Video from 2001 isn't worth anything forensically.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Stating that jet fuel leaking into the basement couldn't cause the collapse of tower 7, or speculating it was controlled demolition isn't stating bombs could.

Also, you need to stop putting alot of stock in the videos. Not because of manipulation. But because of framerates. Cameras take a bunch of photos really fast. Most commercial cameras, like security cameras and cell phone cameras in 2001 have a very low framerate capture. You could literally be missing thousands of frames.

First thing you always question is the evidence gathering methods. Video from 2001 isn't worth anything forensically.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I presented a line of facts, before the opinion, facts can easily be googled on your own.

They want links to avoid typing, what's the melting point of steel, and are buildings built to fall straight down. They want other people to do their thinking for them. To present them a formed opinion they can read and compare to another formed opinion. They definitely don't want to form their own opinion and put it forth. So they say, Links. I don't got links, because I'm not copying other people's opinions. And I'm not running a school to be teaching everyone physics and engineering.

I want you all to look this **** up yourselves and form your own opinions. And then laugh at how bad they are...
Click to expand...

I have looked up and more than you can imagine. So when someone refutes your "opinion" do not expect anything to back it up. Got it.

Take your statement of fact. "Those buildings were built to withstand the impact of airplanes." .. That is true and the towers survived the impact.
What you fail to consider is what else happened after the impact.

Still waiting for the one concise controlled demolition explanation for the destruction of WTC1,2, and 7. There are many conflicting CD explanations all claiming to be true. So which one do you support?
It is interesting how careful you are in what you present.
 
mike2810 said:
I have looked up and more than you can imagine. So when someone refutes your "opinion" do not expect anything to back it up. Got it.

Take your statement of fact. "Those buildings were built to withstand the impact of airplanes." .. That is true and the towers survived the impact.
What you fail to consider is what else happened after the impact.

Still waiting for the one concise controlled demolition explanation for the destruction of WTC1,2, and 7. There are many conflicting CD explanations all claiming to be true. So which one do you support?
It is interesting how careful you are in what you present.
Click to expand...

He seems very coy about his CD explanation.
 
A slower frame rate proves that there were bombs in the basement. How does that work?
 
zyzygy said:
He seems very coy about his CD explanation.
Click to expand...

Being vague is one tactic used.
Let's look at this statement, "Jet fuel ignited offices and the material supposedly burned hot enough to melt steel hot enough to cut precise lines through beams just like thermite.

- First part of "Jet fuel ignited offices and the material", is true.
" The second part "supposedly burned hot enough to melt steel hot enough to cut precise lines through beams just like thermite." is pure CT opinion.

Fires were hot enough to soften/weaken steel. Only on CT sites does the melt steel popup as fact.
Beams were cut in the clean up. No evidence is provided that beams were cut in precise lines before the collapse. Again pure CT info.

His post follow what many have done. Take a "fact" or partial fact. Add some opinion and claim it is all true.


"
 
mike2810 said:
Being vague is one tactic used.
Let's look at this statement, "Jet fuel ignited offices and the material supposedly burned hot enough to melt steel hot enough to cut precise lines through beams just like thermite.

- First part of "Jet fuel ignited offices and the material", is true.
" The second part "supposedly burned hot enough to melt steel hot enough to cut precise lines through beams just like thermite." is pure CT opinion.

Fires were hot enough to soften/weaken steel. Only on CT sites does the melt steel popup as fact.
Beams were cut in the clean up. No evidence is provided that beams were cut in precise lines before the collapse. Again pure CT info.

His post follow what many have done. Take a "fact" or partial fact. Add some opinion and claim it is all true.


"
Click to expand...

All these truthers follow the same modus operandi. It's like a hive mentality.
 
zyzygy said:
"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: 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."

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Center - Debunking the Myths
Click to expand...

What they've done here is taken a fact like a pocket of fire hit 1832 and speculated as to why. Not alot different to what I've done.

Except, the jet fuel burned out in ten minutes, did that pocket hit those temps in those ten minutes? Or did some other material get that hot after the jet fuel burned out, which they noted didn't do it, it was the stuff burning after that brought em down.

Don't be so quick to to accept the competence of government investigators investigating the first time something has happened. Or the opinion of experts.

Lots and lots of innocent people been convicted on the word of an "expert".

Experts thought this photo was proof of something, til it turned out it was a cut from a cleanup crew six weeks later.
 

Attachments

  • 911column.jpg
    911column.jpg
    14.3 KB · Views: 9
ThoughtEx. said:
What they've done here is taken a fact like a pocket of fire hit 1832 and speculated as to why. Not alot different to what I've done.

Except, the jet fuel burned out in ten minutes, did that pocket hit those temps in those ten minutes? Or did some other material get that hot after the jet fuel burned out, which they noted didn't do it, it was the stuff burning after that brought em down.

Don't be so quick to to accept the competence of government investigators investigating the first time something has happened. Or the opinion of experts.

Lots and lots of innocent people been convicted on the word of an "expert".

Experts thought this photo was proof of something, til it turned out it was a cut from a cleanup crew six weeks later.
Click to expand...

Which experts? Once again, no links to your claims. Are you a CD truther?
 
Last edited:
The fires heated the atmosphere in the impact zone (a mixture of gases and smoke) to temperatures as high as 1100 C (2000 F). However, there was a wide variation of gas temperature with location and over time because of the migration of the fires toward new sources of fuel, a complicated and irregular interior geometry, and changes of ventilation over time (e.g., more windows breaking). Early after the impact, a floor might have some areas at habitable temperatures, and other areas as hot as the burning jet fuel, 1100 C. Later on, after the structure had absorbed heat, the gas temperature would vary over a narrower range, approximately 200 C to 700 C away from centers of active burning.

As can be seen from Table 2, steel loses half its strength when heated to about 570 C (1060 F), and nearly all once past 700 C (1300 F). Thus, the structure of the impact zone, with a temperature that varies between 200 C and 700 C near the time of collapse, will only have

The Thermodynamics of 9/11
 
Collapse

Airplane impact sheared columns along one face and at the building’s core. Within minutes, the upper block had transferred a portion of its weight from central columns in the impact zone, across a lateral support at the building crown called the “hat truss,” and down onto the three intact outer faces. Over the course of the next 56 minutes (WTC 2) and 102 minutes (WTC 1) the fires in the impact zone would weaken the remaining central columns, and this steadily increased the downward force exerted on the intact faces. The heat-weakened frames of the floors sagged, and this bowed the exterior columns inward at the levels of the impact zone. Because of the asymmetry of the damage, one of the three intact faces took up much of the mounting load. Eventually, it buckled inward and the upper block fell. (1)

Now, let’s explore heat further.

The Thermodynamics of 9/11
 
zyzygy said:
A slower frame rate proves that there were bombs in the basement. How does that work?
Click to expand...

Taking a speculative statement meant to bring into question the validity of jet fuel seeping into the basement and presenting it as something I stated as a fact, is dishonest. Or stupid.

Take your pick.
 
For example, according to 9-11 Research: An Independent Investigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says AboveTopSecret.com - Conspiracy Theories, UFOs, Paranormal, Politcs, and other "alternative topics" - home page for Saturday, July 13, 2019. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

The Thermodynamics of 9/11
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Taking a speculative statement meant to bring into question the validity of jet fuel seeping into the basement and presenting it as something I stated as a fact, is dishonest. Or stupid.

Take your pick.
Click to expand...

The buildings did not collapse from the basement down. What are you saying? You are not being very clear.
 
zyzygy said:
Collapse

Airplane impact sheared columns along one face and at the building’s core. Within minutes, the upper block had transferred a portion of its weight from central columns in the impact zone, across a lateral support at the building crown called the “hat truss,” and down onto the three intact outer faces. Over the course of the next 56 minutes (WTC 2) and 102 minutes (WTC 1) the fires in the impact zone would weaken the remaining central columns, and this steadily increased the downward force exerted on the intact faces. The heat-weakened frames of the floors sagged, and this bowed the exterior columns inward at the levels of the impact zone. Because of the asymmetry of the damage, one of the three intact faces took up much of the mounting load. Eventually, it buckled inward and the upper block fell. (1)

Now, let’s explore heat further.

The Thermodynamics of 9/11
Click to expand...

So, you're finding a lot of other peoples opinions addressing the facts I stated. Explaining how they can be true, and still produce the results. But yet, not actually countering them as facts.

Meaning I'm free to agree or disagree however I choose, and with whatever part I choose.

You don't seem to get what's going on here.

I don't have any idea what happened. I just wanted to have a debate. I chose this forum at random. And used debate tactics I learned on a debate team to formulate an unpopular opinion to see if anyone could counter it in style.

No one did.

All you did was do what every other nutter does, except your nuttery is the official account on record. So you think it adds to your credibility and gives you license to dismiss posited points in a debate, and force the opponent into a more indefensible position through ignorance of their arguments.

I even pretty much told you what I was doing at the beginning when I stated i wanted people to form their own arguments so i could laugh at them. The fact you didn't pic up on it then, is your own damn fault.
 
zyzygy said:
The buildings did not collapse from the basement down. What are you saying? You are not being very clear.
Click to expand...

I'm being clear as day, if you can't understand thats on you. It's not my responsibility to ensure you understand everything I say.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
So, you're finding a lot of other peoples opinions addressing the facts I stated. Explaining how they can be true, and still produce the results. But yet, not actually countering them as facts.

Meaning I'm free to agree or disagree however I choose, and with whatever part I choose.

You don't seem to get what's going on here.

I don't have any idea what happened. I just wanted to have a debate. I chose this forum at random. And used debate tactics I learned on a debate team to formulate an unpopular opinion to see if anyone could counter it in style.

No one did.

All you did was do what every other nutter does, except your nuttery is the official account on record. So you think it adds to your credibility and gives you license to dismiss posited points in a debate, and force the opponent into a more indefensible position through ignorance of their arguments.

I even pretty much told you what I was doing at the beginning when I stated i wanted people to form their own arguments so i could laugh at them. The fact you didn't pic up on it then, is your own damn fault.
Click to expand...
That is obvious. Please try to debate in a civilized manner. My opinion is that what truthers call the official story fits the facts best. The links I provided address the facts.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I'm being clear as day, if you can't understand thats on you. It's not my responsibility to ensure you understand everything I say.
Click to expand...

You have not actually said anything because you don't know what happened on 911.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom