It was the Jews!!!! You heard it here...!!!!! LOL!!!!
Well..I figured y'all get blamed for everything else...why not 9/11?
I think this should satisfy all of your questions:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...BRETest/BehaviourMultiStoreySteelBuilding.pdf
The initial link I gave you already answered questions about the atmospheric temperature. It reached as high as 1072 (at least on the beam I was focused on), and you can see that the temperature of the steel was never far behind the atmospheric temperature. In some cases the steel was hotter than the atmospheric temperature as it retained the heat as the fires around it reduced.
Guys, enough. I did it. It wasn't all that hard either.
I must admit this is the first I've heard of all of these tests. I can certainly believe that it could be another NIST type venture; pages and pages of spurious data. I wasn't the first to review the NIST data; experts such as Steven Jones did; I simply followed his and others' train of thought and found it to be logically consistent. So perhaps one day Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan or someone of their calibur could look through the reams of pages in the document you link to. In the meantime, however, I think I'll stick to the evidence I already know, including a lot of things I didn't know brought up in 9/11 mysteries.
have you considered nano alumino-thermic explosives technology manufactured as "frozen smoke"?
I have not. Why would this be necessary in any event?
Aerogels/frozen-smoke is an amazing insulator too, excellent for fireproofing.
But you misunderstand: the Lizardoid cabal responsible had no actual interest in real insulation.
Try 1999/2000:
***Two blueprints for the 1999, 2000 construction upgrades to WTC 2, provided by a supporter, indicated that the work was done at almost exactly the point of impact and failure in that tower. That is, the southeast quadrant of WTC 2 was the focus of the work, at least on the 78th floor (the blueprints provided were for floors 77 and 78 only). It was the southeast quadrant of WTC 2, at and just above floor 78, where flight 175 hit.***
Two problems:
1) I've never seen these blueprints, and so I can't go on the word of the likes of Dylan Avery, who believes in Pentagon missiles.
Habeus corpus.
2) Assuming - a broad, generous assumption - is it not an even simpler explanation that the repair work was simply faulty?
Another thing about the Troofer hypotheses - why would the Lizardoid cabal want any explosions at all? I'm sure it's very impressive that the sound travels at Mach 3, but why would they want any explosions? Surely one could simply cut the beams using regular thermite?
And why didn't the thermite go off when the explosion hit?
And why did it then go off at all the different points that you say it did, up and down the tower?
Originally Posted by scott3x
Yeah, hah hah. I have a feeling you may never go to either link I posted. So I decided to excerpt a little piece:
***Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether)...
Why?
You further make the assumption "those committing the crimes": who? The 19 Saudi hijackers?
This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites
A vast, vast assumption. Why are these compounds the "most probable"? Because they seem to survive the challenge of the official story best?
Does steel melt from gasoline fire?
There's really nothing in Geoff's posts worth responding to.
So many unsupported comments.
A reliance on ridicule.
Opinions that are not explained or supported.
It's all lines from what could be a speech, and he's
selling the Official Theory.
You can't have a useful discussion if all you want to do is
perform for an imagined fan audience.
MM
I must admit this is the first I've heard of all of these tests. I can certainly believe that it could be another NIST type venture; pages and pages of spurious data. I wasn't the first to review the NIST data; experts such as Steven Jones did; I simply followed his and others' train of thought and found it to be logically consistent. So perhaps one day Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan or someone of their calibur could look through the reams of pages in the document you link to. In the meantime, however, I think I'll stick to the evidence I already know, including a lot of things I didn't know brought up in 9/11 mysteries.
Stick to the evidence you already know? What? You plan on not learning anything else? What??
You really are a piece of work, aren't you?
Here, I present you with evidence that is independent of NIST and the American government. These tests took place well before 9/11, so there can be no baseless claims of an agenda here. It is a scientific pursuit to test the effects of fire on steel structures.
Your slanderous comments that they falsified their data are moronic.
In my view, you have now sunk to the same level as Ganymede.
When did I say it was necessary? I simply assumed you were interested in knowing who was responsible for 9/11, but if you're not interested, by all means, you can just hop off this thread.
What are you trying to convey to me here?
I also believe that the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane. In any case, if I can find the blueprints, I'll let you know.
The main problem is that there is so much evidence that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition.
It would take longer to demolish the building and perhaps most importantly, the amount used would have to be a lot more, thus taking a lot more time to install. NIST loves making this point, but fails to address things like thermate and/or nanothermite entirely.
If you really want to see a convincing argument, I suggest you see 9/11 mysteries, part 1- demolition:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871
There's tons of points in there that back it all up in that 90 minute film. If you're really interested in seeing my arguments and more all working together, I think you should atleast take a brief look.
In magic tricks, it's called misdirection.
Look, of the alleged 19 hijackers, atleast 9 of them are still alive:
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
Cases of mistaken identities
Shortly after the attacks and before the FBI had released the pictures of all the hijackers, several reports appeared claiming that some of the men named as hijackers on 9/11 were alive, and were feared to have been victims of identity theft.[18][19][20] These cases, however, turned out to be instances of mistaken identities.[21][22]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html
As to who was involved in the actual execution of the attacks that unfolded on 9/11, I've already listed various potential contenders.
But first, people have to start looking in the right direction; they have to stop thinking that planes could possibly have brought down the towers and start looking at what did bring them down: explosives. Then we can look with more determination at the people who likely put them there.
I admit I'm not sure here. To tell you the honest truth, sometimes this all feels like I'm being asked to explain every detail, when the vast majority of evidence already supports the claim that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
GeoffP said:Does steel melt from gasoline fire?
Scott said:Not that I'm aware of.
I actually don't mind some of his posts. I think he makes me think of what I've said and even do some more research at times. This doesn't mean I'll necessarily respond to all of his posts and I'm sure he feels no obligation to do the same either. I think the most important thing here is that in a very real sense we are dealing with emotional things. Essentially, if someone wants to believe (or disbelieve) something, people will have a tendency to discard potential evidence that doesn't fit their world view and cling to potential evidence that does.
Nevertheless, it's not black and white. A person may not want to see the truth, but if you keep on putting it before their eyes, they may start to question their views. I think the main trick is friendly repetition.
I'm not saying they falsified their data. Taken by itself, I'm not sure why they got the results they did. I also don't trust them and people I do trust (Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan) haven't said anything about it yet. The movie 9/11 mysteries, part 1- demolitions, on the other hand, seems easy to understand and logically consistent. Have you seen it yet?
Kenny, you frequently won't even -look- at my links unless I post an excerpt, so you're not one to talk about looking at all the evidence.