9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FDNY Aux Registered Member

    Just for laughs because FDNY will tell everyone that theres no auxiliary program.


    The following was a july 2007 article.

    Courier-Life Publications - Volunteer fireman is really top dog (PDF File)

    For his bravery, his FDNY friends recently honored him with a special ASPCA award. The award was one of dozens he’s received over the twenty-plus years he has volunteered his time as an auxiliary fireman. Over the years, Hunter has helped tend to wounded fire victims and helped monitor hydrants and hoses as firefighters...
    280k - 40 sec @ 56k www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18566166&BRD=2384&PA... www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18566166&BRD=2384&PAG=461&dept_id=576289&rfi=6
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    A observer out side the building 70 some floors below and how far away form the event, and you want this to prove something?

    2 line to control fires on 7 floors? yes really. :roflmao:
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    2700 F is the melting point of steel, where it will liquify. It begins to loose strength at much lower temps. It loses half its strength at 1200 F.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    To add to that, much of the supporting structure was of Litesteel beam, and girder, not red steel heavy beam and girder.

    box beam - box girder.
    –noun a beam or girder built up from shapes and having a hollow, rectangular cross section.


    The buckling strength of a new cold-formed hollow flange channel section known as LiteSteel beam (LSB) is governed by lateral distortional buckling characterised by simultaneous lateral deflection, twist and web distortion for its intermediate spans. Recent research has developed a modified elastic lateral buckling moment equation to allow for lateral distortional buckling effects. However, it is limited to a uniform moment-distribution condition that rarely exists in practice. Transverse loading introduces a non-uniform bending moment distribution, which is also often applied above or below the shear centre (load height). These loading conditions are known to have significant effects on the lateral buckling strength of beams. Many steel design codes have adopted equivalent uniform moment-distribution and load-height factors to allow for these effects. But they were derived mostly based on data for conventional hot-rolled, doubly symmetric I-beams subject to lateral torsional buckling. The moment-distribution and load-height effects of transverse loading for LSBs, and the suitability of the current design modification factors to accommodate these effects for LSBs are not known. This paper presents the details of a research study based on finite element analyses on the elastic lateral buckling strength of simply supported LSBs subject to transverse loading. It discusses the suitability of the current steel design code modification factors, and provides suitable recommendations for simply supported LSBs subject to transverse loading.
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2009
  8. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    LiteSteel came on the market in 2004.

    more JREF bull ?
  9. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    There is no evidence of any steel experiencing 1200 degrees F in the towers. Are you aware of that? Over 90 % of the steel that NIST tested from the towers never got hotter than 500 degrees F where it hasn't lost more than about ten percent of it's strength.
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Here is a good explanation:


  11. John99 Banned Banned

  12. albertchong1999 The truth is out there Registered Senior Member

    there is no conspiracy in the twin tower crash. The islamic terrorists had planned the strike at the right moment. I had studied islamic studies and motive. Islam itself is good but their believer had misused it, even in the mosque the gurus spread hatred among their worshipper towards the west. Indonesia Bali bombing involving malaysian terrorist, southern Thailand riot, Phillipine unrest, UK bus bombing etc all is contributed by islamic terrorist.they think Jihad is legal but actually Allah will not condoned their act. all the terrorists act blindly and didn't follow Allah's will. that is why they still left backward until today as compare to other religion's believer.

    Twin tower collapse is destined because that is caused by fire. If in the absent of fire, the building itself will never collapse in the impact. there is unlucky that the air-plane got lot of fuel to burn and cause structural steel weakness. Iraqi do the right planning and they are sure that the explosion will cause fuel to burn.

    finally, Bush do the right thing to neutralised most of the terrorist and executed Saddam hussein. worldwide Al-kaeda network is crippled and the whole world is more peaceful, including USA nation safety.

    If you want to talk conspiracy, talk about Bush mentioning mass destruction weapon in Iraq. Actually Bush use this excuse to invade Iraq and capture terrorist. If not,USA will never be able to gain entry without any excuse. Bush will never want the Iraqi oil or search for weapons, BUT the revenge motive for the destruction of their Twin Tower and kill those terrorist...
  13. gluon Banned Banned

    Ok, sorry macgyver... whilst this is very psuedoscientific, it's too much for my ass. I sware, this shit would even make Eurie (WHATEVER) you call him, look like Einstein.
  14. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Engineers inspecting the steel at the scrap yards found steel which most definitely went over 1200F. Tony you posted a link to Astaneh talking about melting girders. He described seeing steel which was softened by fire

    "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."

    There seems to be a contradiction in your posts. Do you think there were high temperatures or low ones?

    Very few of those samples came from the impact area. The NIST report does mention this I believe.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  15. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Yes, who is th eone with more JREF bull? Eat Your Hat

    LiteSteel™ Technologies became a company in 2004, litesteel was around long before that.


    Litesteel, tube-frame, 40 percent lighter than Structural steel, and that means 40% less steel.

  16. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Thanks anyway Reiku.

    LOL this thread too woo woo for Reiku...now that's saying something.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    j/k I guess you can go back to the physics forum and bug Ben the Man.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Shaman, the only way to actually determine the temperatures experienced by the steel would have been to do spheroidization tests on the microstructure. That was not done at the salvage yards. They could not have known what the temperatures experienced were by just looking at it and saying it was softened, as both load and temperature play a part in deformation and they did not know the loads. You are really grasping here.

    The fact that no testing was done and no attempt to identify failure sequences or modes of the structure in the fire affected areas tells us that the salvage yard inspections were simply for show. They have apparently fooled many including you, and I have to admit I belonged in that group for awhile. This doesn't mean those who did the inspections were in on it, only that they were used for a show front since what they did was not used in any real investigatory way.

    Why wasn't all of the steel from the fire affected areas saved for testing and evaluation to determine failure modes and sequence in a real forensic analysis? This steel would have only taken up an area the size of half a football field and be about two feet high.

    There is no contradiction in what I am saying. I do believe there were high temperatures on fire affected area steel caused by incendiaries, but it could not be saved and tested as these temperatures would be far beyond what fire could produce and would have blown the cover of aircraft impact damage and fire being the cause of collapse. So the NIST is left with no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high temperatures. That is the real contradiction and one only needs to think a little to see what was done and how the cover-up operated as I have stated here.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2009
  18. albertchong1999 The truth is out there Registered Senior Member


    tonnes of jet fuel definitely exploded and burned those steel reinforcement and support and weaken it. this is simple and yet many still don't understand it... GO BACK TO SCHOOL..
  19. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    So how would you explain this?


    You are the one who is happy to quote Astaneh when you think he is talking about very high temperatures but when he is actually standing in front of evidence for temperatures high enough to soften the steel you wont accept it.

    No amount of testing will ever be enough for those who deeply want to believe in conspiracies. People like Astaneh looked at the steel and found signs which were consistent with the other evidence – temperatures reaching 1000C.

    They thought they had found enough to reach a conclusion though. Sure they could have done more thorough testing. That doesn’t imply conspiracy though.

    It took six months to remove all the steel from the site. Thousands were involved in the clean up. Why would they use a method that left obvious clues and any one of thousands of people involved in the clean up could just grab a piece?

    Only if you want to see it and are willing to ignore some things you don’t want to see.

    Going from office fire tests, such as the last Cardington one, temperatures of near 1000C are no problem. Particularly if we are talking about a well ventilated fire ignited with a few thousand gallons of jet fuel. In those same tests the unprotected steel was only slightly lower than that of the atmosphere. There have been other fires in steel structures which caused collapse as well. It isn’t reaching at all.
  20. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Notice Astaneh doesn't say 1200 degrees F. He just generally says it had to be very hot. He really can't be sure what the temperature was. It is common practice to heat steel to 800 to 900 degrees F for forming with sufficient load and cracks will not occur. The cracking is also dependent on how much deformation occurs and the ductility of the material. ASTM A36 is very ductile and has an elongation of 20%, when it is at room temperature, before cracking will occur. That is very large for metals.

    The video does not tell us where the piece of steel came from and I have to wonder why the NIST did not get this piece, identify where it came from and show what the temperatures were.

    Now you are up to steel reaching 1000 degrees C (1800 degrees F) and there is proof of that in FEMA Appendix C which was determined by looking at the microstructure not just visual inspection in a landfill. However, you don't mention the sulfidation and intergranular melting, due to a eutectic formation, that was also discussed, and which has never been investigated further as was recommended.

    It is nonsense that they thought they had enough. There was no real forensic analysis done and you can't say that there was. Watch this clip from a History Channel show at 3.00 minutes in to hear Fire Engineering Professor Jonathan Barnett say they couldn't do the type of investigating and cataloging they normally do, in the case of a collapse, on WTC 7.


    Notice it is the commentator who says they couldn't because of search and rescue, which is a nonsense excuse for WTC 7, as nobody was in the building or around it when it collapsed and the commentator even admits this earlier. The debris from WTC 7 was also quite well separated from that of WTC 5 and 6 so the other excuse about mixing of debris is nonsense also.

    Yes, it is true that it took six months to remove all of the steel, but the recycling started pretty early as evidenced by quotes of various engineers in the NY Times and other sources, as seen here http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ce_from_Ground_Zero_at_the_World_Trade_Center

    The NIST investigation, which would actually do some testing, did not start until 13 months after the collapses. So what is your point? Imagine that, they didn't start the investigation until all of the steel, except 236 pieces or less than 0.5% of the steel was left.

    Nobody could just grab a piece! Aren't you aware that the trucks taking the steel to Freshkills had GPS tracking units installed on them? One truck driver took an extended lunch and was fired. The steel was obviously being tracked to ensure it wasn't diverted.

    Additionally, most of the people involved in the clean up would have no idea what they were looking at if thermate were used on those columns in the fire affected areas to soften it to the point of collapse. They would simply think the fire softened or even melted it. Astaneh did say he saw evidence of melting, but it isn't being paid attention to by NIST or anyone with authority to investigate. The only way the clues could be picked up is with spheroidization and residue testing, and only spheroidization testing was done on the very small amount of steel which was saved for NIST. Would fire have done what we see in this picture?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Interestingly, the NIST didn't get any steel that looked like this and so never tested anything like it. While one could say the damage happened due to fires in the rubble pile, one can't say melting could have happened there due to fire, as the fires could not have gotten hot enough.

    I am looking at the whole picture. You aren't. Please provide a mechanism to have the structure collapse without a deceleration of the upper block, because there isn't one. This fact will become very public very soon.

    Although I don't believe the Cardington test steel reached anything near 1000 degrees C, the temperatures were relatively high yet there was no collapse. Cardington showed why NO steel framed high rise has ever collapsed to the ground due to fire, even with relatively high temperature fires, making your point moot.

    The NIST report on WTC 7 was essentially on life support when it was released and the recent proof of the rapid onset of collapse and freefall of WTC 7 for over 100 feet mercifully took it off for all to see it had no basis. Have you seen these three recent videos?

    Part I

    Part II

    Part III

    Couple this with the destruction of the steel evidence, from WTC 7 and the towers, before a legitimate forensic analysis could be performed, and now the provable lack of deceleration in the fall of the North tower upper block, and it is obvious that these three complete collapses were a result of controlled demolition and not damage from aircraft or debris impact and fire. The questions left to be answered are who did it, exactly how they did it, and why. The obvious cover-up and destruction of the evidence provides the initial clues to answer those questions.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
  21. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    ventilation does not increase the atmosphere temperature of a fire.

    why do you think ovens have doors?

    next time I oven-cook something, should i leave the door open to increase the ventilation? is that what you are saying?

    temperatures inside buildings with closed areas will increase with internal fire, but when windows break, heat (temperature) escapes and the atmosphere temperature will drop to an equilibrium temperature. more oxygen will be provided which may further ignite smouldering fires. A fully involved office building fire (one that is engulfed in flame like the windsor tower) will generally not go above an equilibrium of 800-1000 C atmosphere temperature.

    burning jet fuel will produce a temperature of 287 C. there is nothing especially hot about jet fuel as a fuel source in normal air and pressure conditions.

    This is sophistry. the examples that you have presented of steel structures "collapsing" due to fire, are all extremely weak structures especially vulnerable to fire. you have presented no structure qualitively similar to a skyscraper. your examples are mainly barn-like warehouse structures which are particularly vulnerable to fire since they have large quantities of fuel, little of the structure would act conductively to wick away the heat, with a larger proportion of steel unsupported in the hotest area - the roof just above the fire.

    It says a lot when your top example is a toilet paper warehouse whose roof collapsed - massive fuel source, barn-like, structurally weak.
  22. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    He does however give an estimate with this quote. - "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
    Not the exact temperature no. But is his estimate of 2000F is likely to be wrong by 1200F?

    So they sent engineers out to inspect the site and, according to you, you can’t get an indication of the temperatures reached. At no point did that dawn on them? What were they there for?

    Astaneh seems to think he had a good indication of temperatures.

    Based on the condition it was in he came to the conclusion that it was near the impact area.

    It is disappointing that few of the panels tested and mentioned in their report came from the impact areas. It is a pointless test. It was as if all the best looking pieces were chosen to be tested. As I have said, incopetence does not necessarily equal conspiracy.

    If Astaneh is to be believed though, there were other pieces with evidence of high temperatures.

    My post was not a report. There were many things I did not mention.

    Are you referring to the analysis done by Biederman, Sisson, and Barnett?

    You are correct that some of the engineers complained that they would have liked more time to investigate. An incomplete government funded project is not necessarily evidence for a conspiracy though. It happens all the time.

    I read that the WTC7 was not separated from the WTC1+2 debris.

    So what if it started early? It took six months to remove the steel! According to you the whole conspiracy could be completely exposed if, at some time over the six months someone grabbed evidence of molten steel, incendiaries or explosives.

    They had the reports from engineers who were on the site and inspected the steel at the scrap yards.

    Sooooo.. …… grab a piece before it is in the truck??!!!

    Large amounts of steel was stolen.
    “In late September of 2001, only weeks after the World Trade Center disaster, officials uncovered a criminal scheme to divert sheet metal beams from the Ground Zero rubble to Long Island and New Jersey. In late October, some 250 tons of scrap metal were found at unofficial dump sites in both those areas.

    If only we have a quote where he went into more detail about what he was talking about. Oh wait!
    - "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."

    Astaneh has made it very clear that he does not believe in any of the conspiracies and that the fires alone were enough to initiate the collapse.

    He gave NIST a report. They paid attention to that.

    Potentially yes.

    A eutectic solution could lead to some ‘melting’.

    From your paper? (Not sarcasm)

    Have you looked at the results?

    From the Cardington report I have, regarding the office test – “Within 10 minutes of ignition, local atmosphere temperatures were in excess on 900C. The recorded maximum atmosphere and unprotected steel temperatures were 1213C and 1150C respectively.”

    *** Edit. Source - http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...eferences/MultistoreySteelFramedBuildings.pdf

    I will repeat once again. The columns in the Cardington tests were shielded. In test 2, part of one column was not shielded and it started to buckle (just as the steel in WTC5 did) so for the remainder of the tests they made sure all of the columns were protected right up to the top. They did not want the building to collapse.

    The column started buckling when it reached 670C.

    I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I had heard this.

    Show me the examples of high rise buildings that stayed up after a 767 smashed into them at full speed.

    They were not testing to see if the building would collapse. They adjusted their tests so that it would not.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
  23. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    show me the raw data with those numbers.
    Any third party website that makes claims that are not supported by the raw data is bogus.

    In order to get a context you need the raw data, so any third party assertion of numbers will also be absent context.

    I have given you links to the raw data in the spreadsheets, where are those numbers in the raw data?

    What were the temperatures of the core at the time of collapse according to the NIST fire simulation data?

    According to the simulation data, were the fires getting hotter or cooler as collapse neared?

    its all there is red and blue:
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page