Okay, all of you that think jet fuel would not melt steel are absolutely correct. There is now way that could happen. But don't you think steel would lose considerable strength when it reaches over half its critical temperature point?

And as for the "free fall" speed I keep reading about. According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." Jet fuel burns at 1500°.

Additionally, on April 29, 2007, fire weakened steel for the second time in history...lol. A tanker truck carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline lost control and crashed on an elevated underpass in the Macarthur Highway. The fuel exploded into flames and burned fiercely for several hours, but it only took minutes for the span above the flames to collapse and fall onto the span below. But I suppose that was just our government at work again detonating things.

The conspiracy theories are unprovable. The evidence will always be against them. May as well get used to it now are never going to go away. As crazy as the paranoid pipe dreams are to people, they have every right to present them and argue their point of view.

After all, this is still the USA... this year anyhow.

Of course the problem with many "truthers" is that the science is a complete mystery which leads them open to reasoning that substituting "facts", that actually are not true at all, is OK. One of the most common is the "fire did not get hot enough to melt steel" factoid. While true, it also has nothing to do with the failure and was never a claim by anyone competent anyway. The "building fell straight down" is another meaningless factoid, as there are several.

The use of explosives is just a simple lie with no evidence, logic, or anything else to back it up other than "impressions" and "assumptions" by people who simply don't know what they are seeing and hearing, or are just making up crap.

The Material Science group provided an interesting summary well written for laymen. The references are extensive and provide good reading for anyone who is actually interested in the research and analysis of 9/11. There have been a few, technical, unimportant changes to the explanations and assumptions given but do not affect the overall events.

Pay very close attention to the text about explosives.

Of course the "truthers" don't read stuff like this.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Jet fuel burns at that temp when it is vaprised and mixed with air in the jet engine. Spilled jet fuel(basicly Kerosene) does not burn all that hot.


You folks claim we do not understand science.



Q: Doesn't jet fuel burn VERY HOT?





Answer: Jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine.

Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn") kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700degrees Fahrenheit. The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560 degrees. The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.

In a "controlled burn" (where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful "fuel" was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500 dF in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750 dF.

Professor Steven Jones (Google him), a physicist at Brigham Young University, came forward in November 2004 with a published paper on the possibility of thermite having been used at the WTC on 9/11. His research continues, and he has now found not only solidified drops of molten metal in a dust sample from the WTC, but evidence of sulfuric granulation (a "eutectic reaction") on the structural steel, which suggests that thermate, an enhanced form of thermite, was involved in the destruction of the towers.

http://www.911weknow.com/911-faqs/8-q-doesnt-jet-fuel-burn-very-hot

Real science. Not junk from "truther" websites.


http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html

You are just wrong.

Math and physics? That's just funny.

Enter false information and false facts into a computer simulation and you can come up with any so-called "proof" you want where math and physics are concerned.

The reality is that evidence was ignored. The reality is that they admitted that they did not even look for evidence of explosives. (So now they can state that evidence of explosives was not found.)

They had already figured out how to make it look as if a plane and fuel brought down the towers, which is what they want people to believe.

And building #7, according to NIST came down only from a fire fueled by office furniture etc. Yet they have no real evidence that the fires lasted as long as they claim or got as hot as they know was necessary. And yet the building fell SUDDENLY, TOTALLY at near free fall speed. Dust and debris were classic signs of demolition and explosives.

Anyone got a match?

That is all a terrorist needs these days to totally destroy a high rise building according to your leaders.

The scientific community has been compromised by the Bush-Cheney administration and defending them, is defending those who would bring down that which you claim to love. Science is no "big mystery."

NIST claims that building #7 was brought down as the result of fire. So are you saying that NIST is not competent?


They have no evidence because they did not look for evidence of explosives and they admitted that themselves.




That article doesn't mention WTC7.

Does this look like steel melting to you? Does it look like one floor collapsing on top of another floor?

What do you suppose happened to that steel beam that just turns to dust and blows away?

Let me get this straight now!
According to those Psychologist "Experts",if I believe in the Conspiracy-Theories about 9/11 I am sane,but if I believe in my own Knowledge of Physics and Applied Sciences,I am hopelessly Looney-Tooney!


and then they wonder why some think those P-sychologists do not play with a full deck!

Apparently not all scientists agree with the official Bush-Cheney snow job.

You can't discredit everyone. There are too many credible sources who know a snow job when they see one.

Nope!
It's just that the Truther's Claims are getting too absurd!
Especially when they call in the help of Psychologists to smear people who adhere to Science instead Conspiracy-Claims!
Tickles my Funnybone!
Would be funny if it weren't so deceptive!

Its so true almost every adult I know pretty much thinks 911 was a fraud. Its basicly shrug your shoulders and go on with life, its sure not the first time we have been lied into wars.

I have no idea were these folks get that science and physics is on their side when the exact opposit is true and it only takes a few minuts googling to prove this.

How hot does jet fuel get in an open air burn?

Simple quiestion easily answered, just one small example of the flawed 911 investigation and another example of how bad our media realy is.

Awsome post the evidence is right there.

actually still waiting for any of you to post some Physical Evidence besides a few Piccies and the assertion that Bush and Cheney dood it!

Why should we have the burden of proof of anything or any theory? It is Bush-Cheney who are telling the whopping lies that are so absurd. It is their theory/lie that needs to be proven with real evidence. Not with fabricated evidence and computer simulations. Are you seriously going to believe their fabricated figures and evidence over your own two eyes and common sense and many videos that clearly show and prove what happened?

If you really believe the Bush-Cheney account of 9-11 then you also have to believe that the United States Military and secret service and CIA had no clue what was about to happen, (which is a lie, because they were practicing dry runs of the exact scenario.) and that our Military defense and intelligence is totally incompetent, and that the sky scrapers and high rise buildings we build in this country can be taken down by an airplane and suddenly and totally demolished. (Or in the case of WTC7 all a terrorists needs is a match.)

So if you really, truly and honestly believe that, I have some swamp land in Florida for sale if you are interested.

I'm sure you do. Who else would buy it?

I think you would.

Psychologists are now getting in on this cash cow. I wonder what the Chartered Accountants have to say about this.

So do I,so do I!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep,those CPAs!

Cash cow?

Im pretty sure there are better ways to make money

Do people really go to Psychologists?

Even the 911 commision disowns its own findings due to the fact they were lied to on many levels.


9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history

http://www.911summary.com/