Well said.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
[VIDEO] 9/11 "moronic jet fuel argument"
- Thread starter Mad Season
- Start date
- Status
Well said.
this post is so strange.. so so strange.. he posted this
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=188103550&postcount=92
on the 6th. of december.. in a Sandy hook thread..
mama mia..
Corronchilejano
Member
... is there a non-insane reason why people believe Sandy Hook didn't happen?
Burkatron81
Member
Came to see molten steel... leaves disappointed with a video that proves nothing either way.
Gravy Boat
Member
Why would the steel need to be molten for him to prove his point?
Burkatron81
Member
Isnt that the whole argument? That jet fuel caused the steel support struts and cross-bracing to turn into molten steel, thus weakening the towers and causing them to fall? Also the steel was more than half an inch thick and coated in concrete.
This attempt at debunking the conspiracy by using a piece of steel the width of my finger (that has been heated directly for god knows how long?) surely proves nothing, he hasnt even tried to replicate the events that took place that day in any way what so ever (rolls eyes).
You 100% missed the point. Steel, no matter how thick, becomes almost entirely useless at load bearing and working as structural support long before it melts. The video demonstrated that just because you haven't reached the melting point doesn't mean the steel is still useable.
And he tries to make that point by using a thin strip of "metal" in a heat source for who knows how long...
It's a shit video, the debate is shit, it's all shit...tired and old shit.
Whatever truths or lies are there, we probably won't know about then till long after anyone involved is long dead and gone, if ever.
Most fuel was probably consumed on initial impact, and what was left certainly wasn't enough to coat the inner structure of the buildings regardless.
The size of the piece of metal and the length of time are irrelevant. He tells you the temperature, and the concept of steel losing its ability to bear a load works regardless of what size it is.
Your last paragraph is nonsense.
He tells you the temp not the time left in the heat...
That's what I just said. Clearly you have no idea what you're discussing here, so I'm wondering what made you think you could dismiss it out of hand.
And the time left in the heat matters... why? lol
Gravy Boat
Member
Why doesn't it matter?
If the oven is, say, 1500 degrees...what is the maximum temperature anything you put inside it can reach regardless of how long it stays there?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
The steel is either a particular temperature, or it's not. It's a uniform substance, it's not going to react differently because it's been that temperature for three minutes, rather than one.
Anybody who believes the 9/11 conspiracy theory is an idiot, plain and simple. the buildings did not actually fall at free-fall speed, the squibs were dust and debris being pushed out the windows by the collapse, itself, Building 7 was missing a sizable chunk of its base, the WTC was severely weak in the middle because it was basically designed like a series of Home Depots stacked on top of one another (analogy used by that NYC firefighter who had like a 40-page thread on some forum debunking conspiracy theorists), steel becomes useless several hundred degrees earlier than jet fuel burns at, etc. Literally every 9/11 truther argument has been debunked by structural engineers, firefighters, architects, physicists, etc., but it still persists, for some reason, even though the historical forces that produced the Islamist ideology that precipitated the 9/11 attacks are well-established and -understood. Morons.
And we trust him at his word?
And we know the exact temps in the towers in an open environment in places and closed in others?
With all due respect but are you for real?
Extra Sauce
Member
I wish I could find Mike Gibbons's hilarious deconstruction of 911 conspiracy theories on the Greg Fitzsimmons podcast.
In a nutshell, Mike knows a lot of guys who work in the construction industry and based on how much corners are being cut, the real mystery is how most skyscrapers are standing up in the first place.
In a nutshell, Mike knows a lot of guys who work in the construction industry and based on how much corners are being cut, the real mystery is how most skyscrapers are standing up in the first place.
You're acting like he's blazing a fucking trail, running exotic experiments we've never seen before. He's heating up metal. People do this all day every day for a living. When metal heats up, it bends. We know what the strength of metals are at various temperatures, and we know how hot jet fuel and office equipment burn. We're not perfecting cold fusion here, for crying out loud. Pull your head out of your ass.
psynergylover
Member
we got a live one!
Gravy Boat
Member
Come one now, this is something people do every day. There are entire industries based around heating metal. We know this stuff, he's not just one guy with this mind blowing revelation that metal gets weaker as its heated. It's one thing to question things. but you shouldn't be questioning whether or not metal bends and weakens at high heats.
Exactly...
And yeah, if you think about it it's astounding that the two towers held out as long as they did, after the tremendous amount of stress they had to endure. Two full size jetliners slamming directly into them at full speed, fully loaded with fuel that proceeded to spread throughout the buildings, setting off intense fires that burned for nearly two hours in the North Tower's case. And the fact that the South Tower had both it's center core and it's outer core severed upon impact(hence why it fell first). People like to say "oh the Twin Towers were built to withstand an impact from a commercial airliner", and they are right, because the buildings did survive the impacts. Those buildings performed wonderfully for what they had to go through.
Which is another thing, if the towers were brought down with controlled explosives what would've been the point in bringing them down so asymmetrically? You let one burn on TV for 56 minutes and then bring it down, then let the other one burn for a half hour more and then bring it down? And then you wait seven more hours to bring down building 7? Talk about sloppy demolition, they could've done it so much cleaner.
The basic idea here is steel does not go from being solid to being molten - it slowly heats up and gets weaker and weaker over time. And the debate is not and has never been about whether the beams melted. The question is, does metal become more pliable as it heats up. The answer is yes. You really don't need to over think this.
The follow up question is whether the beams heated up enough is easy to answer. The video in the OP answered it, the NatGeo video here demonstrates it with an actual steel beam and actual jet fuel:
But I'm not expecting you to be persuaded by these demonstrations. After all, we have the mother of all demonstrations that beams weaken when heated in 9/11, when they cause two large buildings to collapse. Personally, I feel like that's as vivid a real world illustration as we're going to get.
Well atmospheric pressure does have some play into temperature doesn't it? Like baking something in the mountains is different than baking something at sea level, the one higher up is more likely to burn.
:O
Orbis Tabula
Member
I miss the old thread. It was massive and fun to read.
Yeah, the last time it was bumped I discovered there are people who think the twin towers were melted by a giant space ray.
That was a good one.
I think the real question is whether that thread ever actually happened. Signs point to no.
curls
Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience ð¤
Oh god there are loads actually.
- Drone 747's
- Hologram 747's
- Swapped or fake 747's where the passengers were taken.
- Secret space based ray that can vaporise metal.
- Mini nuclear bomb underneath to create a sinkhole.
- Nano thermite controlled demolition.
- Pre cut steel beams.
- Reported theft of gold bullion from the basement.
- Direct financial Saudi involvement with hijackers but covered up to protect Saudi-US relations.
- Rubble passports
Any more left out?
The conspiracy theories are quite fragmented.
It's like a dog chasing its own tail, just circular debates mostly focused on observational evidence on how the towers collapsed - not fact based theories, but mostly guesses.
Edit:
It doesn't help withholding segments of the official report. Placing people of distrust (Henry Kissinger etc) to head the official commission. You would think the officials would be more aware that points like these would fuel the alternative theories.
Most people that suspect a false flag / foul play of different levels are closeted IRL. Due to fear of ridicule IRL.
Therefore it doesn't help to ridicule people or engage in often petty name calling such as conspiracy nuts / morons / idiots. That just serves to alienate and reinforce these peoples belief systems. You need to engage and understand. Debate - but avoid circular arguments as that closes people off to considering your points.
With space rays yes they are closeted however I know many many people who are "conspiracy nuts" so to speak and I'm from NY as well. It's a diffrent level though as more often then not people seem to believe the government had some level of implication or knowledge of the events before they occured. Not necessarily shaped charges and thermite yadayada and definitely not space rays.
I agree though to stop with the name calling in the thread. It really doesn't help and just makes any argument from either side moot.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll