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

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Can you cite a source that, as you put it, would believe that it made "all the difference in the world" if the collapse took 5 seconds longer then they thought?

No need. The constant refrain of "free fall!" still rings in my ears.

You're confusing issues. I'm not asking if people claimed it fell at free fall speeds. I'm asking you if you can cite a claim that stated that 5 seconds would have, in your words, made "all the difference in the world" if the collapse took 5 seconds longer then they thought.

The buildings shouldn't have collapsed at all if all the buildings suffered were airliner collisions and their relatively insignificant fires (insignificant to the building structures, not to the people who were exposed to them).

Of course, those fires weren't insignificant, and neither was the kind of damage the planes inflicted.

Let's see what an expert on the WTC buildings has to say about that:

*********************************************
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,...

this intense grid,... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.

It really does nothing to the screen netting.

You can listen to Frank A. DeMartini, the WTC Construction and Project Manager, saying this in this video:

WTC Construction Manager states WTC would survive multiple airplane strikes (0.8 MB DivX3 320x240).

*********************************************
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/demartini.htm

Highly unlikely from what I've heard. Even if it magically took off all the fire insulation it came across, there is significant evidence that it would have made little difference.

There simply isn't, Scott: this is false.

Here's an excerpt from an article from the South Bend Tribune; you have to pay 1.95$ to get the article from there now, but I do include a link to it from another source at the end of this excerpt:
******************************************
SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001....

...Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
******************************************

**************************************************
Floor 98 was not in the centre of the impact area, but was struck by a portion of the aircraft. The fuselage and the engines hit floors 95 and 96, whereas floor 98 was only hit by the outer section of the plane’s starboard wing. Five of the perimeter columns on floor 98 were severed. If 50% of the building’s gravity load is assumed to be carried by the columns in the building's core and 50% by the 236 perimeter columns, the five severed perimeter columns would have degraded floor 98’s ability to bear the gravity load it supported by slightly more than 1%.[/i]
**************************************************

And how much damage did the fires do in terms of carrying strength of the steel? This is a salient point that no 9/11 Troofer, to my knowledge, has ever tried to meaningfully address.

What is the difference between gravity load bearing and "carrying strength"?

This is what I said exactly

"1- You seem to be working for the government. As such, I believe you may have an impulse, be it unconscious or conscious or some mix of the 2, to want to see all of it in a good light."

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1260

Thankyou; my point is handily illustrated. Why in particular would any individual government worker have any reason to so paint events?

Because you work for a branch of the government. Who wants to think that their employer could have such shady people in its upper echelons? However, there is something I'm curious about; are you a an assistant professor in a university? If so, then you would be comparable to someone like Steven Jones (who was a full fledged professor in a university). Ofcourse, Steven Jones was put on paid leave with an eye towards terminating him when he didn't shut up about his views...

And who, exactly, would -he- be working for?

Well, the government, naturally! He has the cubicle next to mine.

Very funny .

Well, there we are. One is free to cast about aspersions. Who am I likely to be working for? The Lizardoids! You claim this was some tenuous association, but the subtle meaning of your argument persists.

I'm chuckling softly right now . The only thing I was implying was that because you work for a branch of the US government, you might be less inclined to believe that its upper echelons would be capable of such heinous acts.

 

[GeoffP]

You're confusing issues. I'm not asking if people claimed it fell at free fall speeds. I'm asking you if you can cite a claim that stated that 5 seconds would have, in your words, made "all the difference in the world" if the collapse took 5 seconds longer then they thought.

Yes. Five seconds would be 50% longer than that predicted by free fall. This is no small amount.

Let's see what an expert on the WTC buildings has to say about that:

*********************************************
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,...

this intense grid,... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.

It really does nothing to the screen netting.

It sheared off all the screen netting's fireproofing.

******************************************
SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001....

...Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation.

What else doesn't add up is where steel is at forge-temp - meaning molten, I presume - at 1100 degrees but melts at 3000 degrees. Now maybe there's some metallurgical explanation for this, which is fine: yet the site you quoted previously described the heat in the building as being about 1150F. So which is correct temperature? This smells of quote hunting.

What is the difference between gravity load bearing and "carrying strength"?

I'm trying to illustrate here that steel that loses 50% of its supportive strength from the fire (and probably more, to be honest) is not going to bear the same load and will collapse. Were the Towers designed for the loss of 50% of strength-bearing support? Almost certainly not.

Because you work for a branch of the government. Who wants to think that their employer could have such shady people in its upper echelons?

I personally don't care. In fact, I think it likely that governments get up to a lot of shady business; I just don't think it likely in this case, or not based on the propositions being put forward.

However, there is something I'm curious about; are you a an assistant professor in a university?

Yes.

If so, then you would be comparable to someone like Steven Jones (who was a full fledged professor in a university).

No.

Unless you want to indulge in the same hero-worship of me that the 9/11 Truth movement does of Stephen Jones. In which case I heartily accept; I will be your new Messiah.

I'm chuckling softly right now . The only thing I was implying was that because you work for a branch of the US government, you might be less inclined to believe that its upper echelons would be capable of such heinous acts.

Very well; as you say. Unfortunately, Troofers have a habit of labelling anyone a little too cognisant of the facts surrounding 9/11 as government agents.

Geoff

 

[Headspin]

Ahem! You've yet to explain how he could have seen steel melting when he didn't even arrive at the scene until more than a week later.:bugeye:

No, not "steel melting", he said he "saw melting of steel girders at the World Trade Centre".

read it again carefully this time:
"ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here <the bridge>, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees (Fahrenheit). And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders <at the bridge>.
I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scien...ass_05-10.html

do you think there is a problem with his account?

 

[scott3x]

I wish . I'm unemployed again, but tomorrow I'm going up to my mother's farm and hopefully manage to do some work up there.

Then I wish you the best of luck and enjoyment of the weather.

Thanks.

Or atleast that's what you believe. Can you cite where Steven Jones said that nano-thermite was the only demolition tool used? I'm certain I can find a quote where he says otherwise.

By all means, if you like.

I'll patiently wait for your citation ;-). But if you were suggesting that I give one wherein Steven Jones says that other demolition tools may have been used, here's a citation:
*************************************************
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ F needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored — but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
*************************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

But that's not the point: the point is that the story continually evolves and changes. First nanothermite is good enough for the job - and I don't recall you mentioning other explosives, Scott, prior to this last round of posts

I had not spent as much time on the matter as Steven Jones had. I've spent more time on it since and have now seen that he believes that thermate was not the only explosive used.

and then other explosives must have been involved. Or it must have been a mini-nuke.

I never said it "must" have been a mini-nuke. I simply considered it to be a possibility and linked to a site that believed it.

Later, it will be that it must have been an orbital lazer. It must have been an FAE. It must have been aliens. it must have been the owners, or the janitors, or the Jews.

There are certainly a lot of far out theories out there. However, the more you look at the evidence, the more you can narrow it down to the most probable causes. From what I've seen, the main thing that is fairly well established in alternate 9/11 theories is that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The exact explosives used is not so readily agreed upon, but we're working on it.

...because it must have been a conspiracy.

As I've mentioned many times, no one is questioning whether or not it was a conspiracy. The main issue here is whether the masterminds behind this were of foreign origin or home grown. Controlled demolition would tend to point towards home grown as the people who had the most access to the WTC buildings prior to 9/11 were not the alleged 9/11 hijackers, but a security company called Securacom. A company that just happened to have had the president's brother, Marvin Bush, as a principal. There's a lot to this story and you may want to read up on it here:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

Not so? Because these are assumptions that keep being laid about...

The official story goes beyond assumptions; it mutilates the facts. When you don't have the facts, you may be required to make some assumptions or speculations. In scientific terms, these are called hypotheses. You then go about looking for the evidence. You draw your conclusions from said evidence. I remember reading a joke. It spoke of the scientific method, wherein you draw conclusions from the evidence. With the political method, however, they like to find evidence that fits their conclusions; and if the evidence doesn't quite fit, perhaps it can be adjusted .

If the theories I support (I certainly am in good company in supporting them) were so absurd, you would have been to knock them out long ago.

And I have done.

In your dreams perhaps ;-).

If you don't want to review the links I send you, so be it. I have only once asked you to review a movie, and only a few minutes worth of it, since I have only done this with your SLC.

And so I have done. But you refuse - still, I assume - to investigate evidence that damns your hypothesis too strongly.
Gasoline fires melting steel

I have never seen any evidence of that. Certainly not in an uncontrolled fire.

the impossibility of horizontal steel cutting with thermite

Steven Jones argues it was thermate TH3, not thermite.

the simple issue of the temperature in the Towers and the point at which steel loses 50% of its strength

I've dealt with these issues many times before...

or the entire film of Screw Loose Change

As I've said before, the misleading and/or downright false statements made in the first few minutes of the film turned me off from seeing the rest. Feel free to quote any section of it to back up your claims, however.

none of these meet your interest because they undermine too well what it is you're trying to do.

And what is it that you believe I'm 'trying to do'?

I will repost the link to SLC a final time. I hope that you will find it of interest.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

I may perhaps look at the first few minutes again and reiterate why I so dislike that film.

I also attach a link to the refutation of "9/11 Mysteries"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

Perhaps I will find that one more interesting. I'll see if I get around to watching it...

 

[scott3x]

Yes. Five seconds would be 50% longer than that predicted by free fall. This is no small amount.

Perhaps 5 seconds is no small amount to you (yes, yes, 50% more time then it would have taken in free fall), but no one else seems to be interested in this supposedly 'impressive' difference.

Let's see what an expert on the WTC buildings has to say about that:
*********************************************
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,...

this intense grid,... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.

It really does nothing to the screen netting...

It sheared off all the screen netting's fireproofing.

Never mind the fact that there is little if any evidence that fires sheared off the fireproofing from the steel columns it came near; everyone knows that the planes severed some perimeter columns. But the bottom line is that the rest of the steel 'netting' would have held the towers firmly in place. But even for die hard 'fires took off the fireproofing' believers, there's plenty of evidence that even unfireproofed steel was more then a match for the jet fuel and the office supply fires that it started.

 

[GeoffP]

But if you were suggesting that I give one wherein Steven Jones says that other demolition tools may have been used, here's a citation:
*************************************************
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ F needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored — but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
*************************************************

And has this always been his synthesis? More pointedly, what evidence of other explosives were supposedly found?

I never said it "must" have been a mini-nuke. I simply considered it to be a possibility and linked to a site that believed it.

But the "musts" keep creeping in - it must be this, it must be that. The entire thing gets revolved around the initial assumption of conspiracy.

From what I've seen, the main thing that is fairly well established in alternate 9/11 theories is that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The exact explosives used is not so readily agreed upon, but we're working on it.

Well, this is as good as an admission of my point: your central assumption is demolition. The evidence, then, revolves around your assertion, not your assertions around the evidence. This is not scientific, and I understand Headspin insists on a scientific process. Except if it suggests gasoline fires might actually melt steel girders.

As I've mentioned many times, no one is questioning whether or not it was a conspiracy.

Yes.

They.

Are.

I am questioning whether or not it was a conspiracy.

There's a lot to this story and you may want to read up on it here:

You know full well that I cannot in good faith do so at this point. I await your rectification to continue.

The official story goes beyond assumptions; it mutilates the facts. When you don't have the facts, you may be required to make some assumptions or speculations. In scientific terms, these are called hypotheses. You then go about looking for the evidence. You draw your conclusions from said evidence. I remember reading a joke. It spoke of the scientific method, wherein you draw conclusions from the evidence. With the political method, however, they like to find evidence that fits their conclusions; and if the evidence doesn't quite fit, perhaps it can be adjusted .

Yet this is not the process you invoke in your assertion of a conspiracy. You first state your conclusion: demolition. Then you go fishing about for facts, direct or unrelated, which you consider to support this conclusion. This is not the scientific process.

In your dreams perhaps ;-).

No; quite directly. I have illustrated this again and again; but you refuse to acknowledge the point.

I have never seen any evidence of that. Certainly not in an uncontrolled fire.

Then I present it for the fourth time in the hope of finally getting some kind of acknowledgement of it.

www.theage.com.au/news/world/truck-fire-melts-bridge/2007/04/30/1177788022254.html

www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/04/4318_fuel_tanker_mel.html

Steven Jones argues it was thermate TH3, not thermite.

And? This works horizontally intead of vertically? If so, say so.

I've dealt with these issues many times before...

You have not. I cited a source of your own that illustrated that the fire easily exceeded the temperature required for steel to lose 50% of its supportive strength. You have yet to respond reasonably to this request.

As I've said before, the misleading and/or downright false statements made in the first few minutes of the film turned me off from seeing the rest. Feel free to quote any section of it to back up your claims, however.

Well, I cannot in good faith examine a single suggested article of yours until you do. I have seen LC. I have seen SLC. I request you do the same. What is it you're afraid of? I suspect you have been avoiding the articles I have been posting also.

And what is it that you believe I'm 'trying to do'?

Preach.

I may perhaps look at the first few minutes again and reiterate why I so dislike that film.

I must request that you see it in its entirety, as I have done in faith for your sources.

Perhaps I will find that one more interesting. I'll see if I get around to watching it...

Perhaps 5 seconds is no small amount to you (yes, yes, 50% more time then it would have taken in free fall), but no one else seems to be interested in this supposedly 'impressive' difference.

If the entire initial process is assumed to take 10 seconds, but actually takes 15 seconds, this is a vastly significant difference. You are talking about 50% more time than expected. It requires little statistical training to recognize the importance of this difference.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[Headspin]

Then I present it for the fourth time in the hope of finally getting some kind of acknowledgement of it.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...788022254.html
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...anker_mel.html

That is not evidence of bridge steel melting. It is anonymously reported by an establishment foundation funded journalistic organisation with no scientific credentials. It is not physical evidence.
It is also contradicted by Abolhassan Astaneh:
"Here <the bridge>, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees (Fahrenheit) <500-800 Celcius>. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for <bridge> girders, because there was no melting of <bridge> girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

 

[MacGyver1968]

Your link is broken.

 

[GeoffP]

That is not evidence of bridge steel melting. It is anonymously reported by an establishment foundation funded journalistic organisation with no scientific credentials. It is not physical evidence.

Interesting. So journalists may not provide evidence? We cannot use the news to support our hypotheses?

It is also contradicted by Abolhassan Astaneh:

Mac's right: the link's broken.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Mac is also broken.

 

[GeoffP]

You may make a doody.

 

[shaman_]

That is not evidence of bridge steel melting. It is anonymously reported by an establishment foundation funded journalistic organisation with no scientific credentials. It is not physical evidence.
It is also contradicted by Abolhassan Astaneh:
"Here <the bridge>, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees (Fahrenheit) <500-800 Celcius>. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for <bridge> girders, because there was no melting of <bridge> girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scien...ass_05-10.html

Even in that paragraph you are skipping over an important point. 500C-800C is enough to soften the steel so that the bridge collapsed. NIST reported temperatures reaching 1000C at the WTC.

Headspin, if you think that Abolhassan Astaneh's comments are somehow evidence of super mega thermite (or whatever it is this week) perhaps you could explain why his conclusion was that the steel was softened by the fire alone.

 

[Headspin]

Interesting. So journalists may not provide evidence? We cannot use the news to support our hypotheses?

they should have just gathered all the reporters together and got them to tell us what happened to the wtc buildings, what temperatures were reached, what melted, what didn't etc.

...oh I forgot they already did that in the popular mechanics "article".

Mac's right: the link's broken.

its fixed now
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

 

[Headspin]

Even in that paragraph you are skipping over an important point. 500C-800C is enough to soften the steel so that the bridge collapsed. NIST reported temperatures reaching 1000C at the WTC.

"reported" being the operative word. I think the temperatures reached higher than that in the wtc, but what is being discussed is what caused those high temperatures.

Headspin, if you think that Abolhassan Astaneh's comments are somehow evidence of super mega thermite (or whatever it is this week. perhaps you could explain why his conclusion was that the steel was softened by the fire alone.

we are discussing what caused the temperatures. Thermite produces heat and fire and molten iron, fire produces fire and heat but does not produce molten iron. Abolhassan Asteneh did not perform tests so is not in a position to rule out thermite.

 

[Headspin]

invisible fire collapses bridge:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/04/1996648.htm?section=justin

...it is thought that temperatures reached 19 Celcius.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Thermite produces heat and fire and molten iron, fire produces fire and heat but does not produce molten iron. Abolhassan Asteneh did not perform tests so is not in a position to rule out thermite.

No..what rules out thermite, thermate or nano-thermite is the properties of the material itself.

As you stated all three of these compounds create a pool of super heated molten iron...which will burn through steel, if it is allowed to pool on top of it and be pulled by gravity through the steel.

It doesn't work that way in a vertical position. The pool of molten iron would just run down the I-beam, like wax off a candle...spreading out and cooling off.

 

[shaman_]

"reported" being the operative word. I think the temperatures reached higher than that in the wtc, but what is being discussed is what caused those high temperatures.we are discussing what caused the temperatures.

They are temperatures easily reached in a large fire started with jet fuel.

Thermite produces heat and fire and molten iron, fire produces fire and heat but does not produce molten iron. Abolhassan Asteneh did not perform tests so is not in a position to rule out thermite.

So the only single clue for the involvement of thermite is molten iron?

You are aware that there are other explanations for molten or red hot iron?

You don’t think Abolhassan Astaneh would have picked up on something suspicious considering his experience in investigating this type of thing?

Once again, it sounds like he is referring to steel that got extremely soft. He does not make any reference to molten or liquid steel. Remember that his conclusion was that the fire alone was enough to explain the girders he was looking at. If he was talking about liquid steel then why would he come to that conclusion?

Doesn’t thermite cut through the steel though? We are talking about the twisted steel which was softened due to the heat. Are you saying that thermite would explain that?

 

[GeoffP]

they should have just gathered all the reporters together and got them to tell us what happened to the wtc buildings, what temperatures were reached, what melted, what didn't etc.

...oh I forgot they already did that in the popular mechanics "article".

Then what's the complaint?

Is your objection really based on the fact that it was in the general journalistic literature?

 

[scott3x]

******************************************
SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001....

...Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation.

What else doesn't add up is where steel is at forge-temp - meaning molten, I presume - at 1100 degrees but melts at 3000 degrees. Now maybe there's some metallurgical explanation for this, which is fine: yet the site you quoted previously described the heat in the building as being about 1150F. So which is correct temperature? This smells of quote hunting.

A few issues here. It would seem that steel is created (forged) at 1100 degrees but to melt it takes 3000 degress. As to the site you believe I have previously quoted, can you cite the post where I do this? I searched for 1150F in the last 3 pages but came up with nothing...

What is the difference between gravity load bearing and "carrying strength"?

I'm trying to illustrate here that steel that loses 50% of its supportive strength from the fire (and probably more, to be honest) is not going to bear the same load and will collapse. Were the Towers designed for the loss of 50% of strength-bearing support? Almost certainly not.

I think I see where you're going. I also believe that 'gravity load bearing' and 'carrying strength' are essentially the same thing (how much weight can the floor carry). I believe you're not arguing with the fact that floor 98 of the north tower (WTC 1) apparently only lost 1% of its gravity load bearing/carrying strength after the plane crash. Instead you are saying that the ensuing fires did it. Is this what you're saying? If this is the case, there is a lot of evidence that the ensuing office fires did even less damage then the plane crashes. NIST itself contributes to such evidence:
************************************
Imagined Heat

The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)

The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).
*************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

 

[scott3x]

I personally don't care. In fact, I think it likely that governments get up to a lot of shady business; I just don't think it likely in this case, or not based on the propositions being put forward.

And yet I and many others do. Perhaps part of the reason is that I'd already learned of other government actions of this nature. I think the most famous one being that of JFK. I also learned a lot concerning the government's many attempts to discredit very credible information concerning the harmful radiation emitted by so called "depleted" uranium.

As I've mentioned many times, no one is questioning whether or not it was a conspiracy.

Yes.

They.

Are.

I am questioning whether or not it was a conspiracy.

I've killed this 'it wasn't a conspiracy' argument many a time, but people just keep on raising it from the dead. For the umpteenth time, straight from wikipedia:
***********************************************
A conspiracy theory attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations.
***********************************************

No one denies that Al Quaeda fits the bill for the above and yet people seem to have the hardest time admitting that the official story is therefore a conspiracy theory as well. Please read the above carefully and admit your mistake.


Perhaps an excerpt from an article from Kevin Ryan will further help elucidate my point...

*************************************
When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up...
*************************************
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5071

If so, then you would be comparable to someone like Steven Jones (who was a full fledged professor in a university).

No.

Unless you want to indulge in the same hero-worship of me that the 9/11 Truth movement does of Stephen Jones. In which case I heartily accept; I will be your new Messiah.

Steven Jones is not my 'Messiah'. I simply recognize good evidence when I see it (and I've seen quite a bit of his evidence by now). I also recognize that you have some relatively good debating skills and this is why we've been going at it for some time. However, I believe that the evidence in my favour is strong and it's just a matter of time before you realize this...

If so, then you would be comparable to someone like Steven Jones (who was a full fledged professor in a university).

Very well; as you say. Unfortunately, Troofers have a habit of labelling anyone a little too cognisant of the facts surrounding 9/11 as government agents.

I agree that some in the truth movement may be a little too quick to believe that someone who disagrees with them is in on the 9/11 deception. However, the more reasoned truthers will be cautious to come to such conclusions and can certainly backtrack on them if they find that the evidence doesn't support their conclusions. In your particular case I never suspected you to be a government disinformation agent. I can't say the same in Kenny's case, but I backtracked after further analyzing his writings.