• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

The 9/11 Debate is Over

Rapier

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
I thought I'd show everyone how hot a flame must be to cut steel. White/blue hot.


YouTube - Oxyacetylene Cutting

Notice the guy is bracing himself on the thin piece of steel just inches from the flame.
 

Unity

Living in Ikoria
Staff member
Ok, so for those of us who don't know what you're talking about - what was the debate and how does this end it?
 

Stegosaurus

Registered Member
I believe it is referring to the "Prior-knowledge/insider-job" debate over 9/11. In short, one side argues that the jet fuel leaked down to the basement of the towers, caught on fire, melted the steel, and that is what caused the collapse. The other side argues that you could let those steel structures burn for days and not collapse because jet fuel could not get those buildings' structures hot enough to fatigue and collapse. i.e. they argue that the attacks were "allowed" to happen, and that explosives were placed in the basements of the buildings and then triggered at the right time to precision-drop the structures while making it appear as thought they collapsed from the steel-melting fires.

--In a nutshell.
 

BigBob

Registered Member
I watched a video of the way the World Trade Centers were built and they had the guy who actually made it. This was in high school for my architectural class because we were going to build our own buildings. He admitted that there wasn't enough support in the World Trade Centers for the buildings to be able to stand. He said the the beams that were used inside building one, weren't strong enough to withstand a plane crashing into it and two, it would've been strong enough but they didn't use enough beams for support inside.

I wish I could remember the exact name of the documentary.
 

Stegosaurus

Registered Member
(I'll keep this as concise as I can) Afterthought: This argument has been taken to extremes and beaten into the ground. I'm all for skepticism, because I believe extraordinary claims need extraordinary data and analysis. What you see in the video is an oxy-acetylene torch burning at 4,530 °F (2,500 °C). You also see a single slat of steel--with no load on it. What you don't see in that video is a set of inter-connected joists designed to support not much more than a basic hydrocarbon fire from combustibles like office-chairs, rugs, computers, plastics, etc. An average Boeing 727 has a fuel capacity of 8,186 US gal (31,000 L). The towers were not designed to resist the metal fatigue caused by a 30,000 liter Molotov cocktail. The result was a "pancaking" effect. So you're right in one respect; the kerosene-like jet fuel did not melt the steel. It softened it--enough to cause collapse.

If you want the facts cited, I'll find the sources. Many conspiracy theories (since the dawn of time) have been proven true--many. But proportionally speaking--against those debunked--they are minuscule. Grief, shock, anger, confusion, inability to cope with past trauma, inability to fully accept--these lead us to say, "No...no...*shakes head in pain*...I do not believe it...I refuse to accept this apparent reality..."

Where the rest of the conspiracy theory goes from there is not within my capacity to fully discuss. Shifty foreign policy, deal-making, double-handedness, back-stabbing, etc... those I believe happen, as we've watched them unfold on the news (or however much is being told of the events). But as far as this isolated incident is concerned, I think it's an enormous stretch to say that it was a controlled drop.
------
USA TODAY Latest news
 
Last edited:

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
Also a lab experiment can't replicate

a) the thousands of variables in play on the day of the attack.
b) the fatigue caused by a 40ish year old building with compromised beams from age, stress, and (in all possibility) poor welding or construction.

So this "it proves EVERYTHING" rhetoric is

a) silly
b) getting old
c) needs to stop

Making lists is fun and informative!
 

john2054

Registered Member
In fact the truth of the matter be told is that those buildings were designed to withstand precisely the kind of impact which occured. It is only because the foundations of the buildings were taken out earlier before impact did they fall when hit. And they fell in the manner of a controlled demolition, not with assymetrical collapse but a symetrical one. That is to say nothing of building 7, that collapsed shortly after which nothing even hit! How do you anti-truthers explain that one then?!?!?
 

Rapier

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
I thought I'd show everyone how hot a flame must be to cut steel. White/blue hot.


YouTube - Oxyacetylene Cutting

Notice the guy is bracing himself on the thin piece of steel just inches from the flame.
The point is he touching, leaning on a thin piece of steel just inches away from where the steel is hot enough to cut the steel. Without being burned.

It shows that that even a white hot flame could not heat a thin piece of steel to make it too hot to touch just inches away because of conduction. Certainly not hot enough to weaken a HUGE column of steel.

Conduction (heat) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In heat transfer, conduction (or heat conduction) is the transfer of thermal energy between regions of matter due to a temperature gradient. Heat spontaneously flows from a region of higher temperature to a region of lower temperature, temperature differences over time, approaching thermal equilibrium. The previous statement can be argued to apply to heat transfer in general, but to distinguish conduction specifically, it should be stated that the heat flows through the region of matter itself, as opposed to requiring electromagnetic waves as does radiation or to requiring bulk motion of the matter as does convection. Conduction takes place in all forms of matter, viz. solids, liquids, gases and plasmas, but does not require any bulk motion of matter. In solids, it is due to the combination of vibrations of the molecules in a lattice or phonons with the energy transported by free electrons.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
The only part of the steel that had to be weakened to comprise the structure, was whatever part the hottest part of the fire happened to be touching. If we're going to have this discussion, though, we need to acknowledge the facts that planes flew into the buildings, and they collapsed soon after. What's the alternate theory as to what collapsed them? A controlled demolition? If so, why the planes? Why not just frame whoever you want to frame as being behind the controlled demolition? I mean, we're apparently talking about a group that's so ridiculously ingenious that they can pull off a massive conspiracy with absolutely no leaks, and yet so dumb they go about things in the most Rube Goldberg way possible. Not buying it. I'm just not buying it.
 

BigBob

Registered Member
The only part of the steel that had to be weakened to comprise the structure, was whatever part the hottest part of the fire happened to be touching. If we're going to have this discussion, though, we need to acknowledge the facts that planes flew into the buildings, and they collapsed soon after. What's the alternate theory as to what collapsed them? A controlled demolition? If so, why the planes? Why not just frame whoever you want to frame as being behind the controlled demolition? I mean, we're apparently talking about a group that's so ridiculously ingenious that they can pull off a massive conspiracy with absolutely no leaks, and yet so dumb they go about things in the most Rube Goldberg way possible. Not buying it. I'm just not buying it.
While I agree, the flaw with that is how would people be able to set up that kind of explosives without someone in the building saying "hmm, what is that and what are they doing?". Honestly, had it just been a controlled demolition where the buildings just blew up without anything flying into it, I wouldn't have believed that the Al Qaeda or Nazis would've done it. That's something where if I was as old as I am now, I would've thought that it was us doing it to ourselves.
 
Top