atheists and "conspiracy" theories

[jackman]

and you all feel comfortable with the amount of time (couple hours) that these buildings burned, to be suffice to pancake the floors of this over-engineered building with 47 vertical columns fire-retardant insulated (that carries an r-value) steel ibeams? commercial office interior doors, have a 90 minute fire-rating for instance. i don't know the rating of the load bearing beams, but i can bet it's much more than 90 mins. very close call, seeing how the buildings didn't burn much more than 2 hrs.

(this isn't research that i read, this is what i know as a builder. there are dampers between verticals, firestop applications between horizontals, so much protection to keep fires from spreading, but that's neither here nor there.)

i can't deny it with solid proof, but i know even when i try to heat some copper pipe with benzo propane or mapp gas, if there is even a drop of water in that pipe near the joint i'm heating, it will take substantially longer to heat that section of pipe, not even enough to melt or deform it, simply enough to melt the flux and heat the silver/lead wet enough to complete the joint. untreated copper heats at such a lower temperature than treated steel. sprinkler systems going off in the building will have wet everything on those floors too, helping to cool what the fire is heating or at minimum raising the amount of time that it would take to raise the temperature.

if the fire in the wtc eventually heated the metal structure enough enough to fall it, then you guys are right and i'll admit i'm wrong. won't be the first time. but you all are leaving no room for being wrong and i don't get how you're so sure of yourself. this entire collapse is unprecedented in history. (go googlers, catch me in a lie).

[Bgood]

Many think it is outlandish to believe in a 911 conspiracy. Yet isn't the belief in the official NIST story the more naive and gullible response? All the debunking videos that I have watched on here are crap! They just make up shit and twist the facts like any good corporate lawyer would do to defend his client's position. (that being U.S. gov and C.I.A).

What about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that started U.S. involvement in Vietnam. That was confessed to being a hoax about 15 years ago. It is not just the U.S government that pulls stunts like these. These cover-ups have been going on for a long time in many countries. To not see or accept that fact is like believing God loves you and is looking out for you along with your government.

911 was an inside job all the way, you can bank on it! The debunking "evidence" are all lies to patch up the holes in retrospect. And I'm sure the "experts" got paid very well by the Gov. to do so, and dissenters who spoke out got imprisoned or silenced.

[libalchris]

I presume you are talking about this point here. Well if that is the case this person does not mention the limitations of jet fuel which burns at about 200-300 degrees C in open air conditions (similar to WTC conditions) well below the temperature require to "severely compromise" steel.

Don't forget about other combustible materials in the towers. Also remember that Jet fuel typically burns at that temperature in open air conditions, but can burn much much hotter. Temperatures would fluctuate based on different circumstances throughout areas of the tower.

[jackman]

I mean really if you've ever seen demolitions, the amount of explosive needed is tremendous, and you can hear the blasts.

that's the ones you've seen or heard about. there are perfectly quiet demolitions as well, that don't boom. no theatrics, just shearing and cracking thru water streams or expansion materials. on something the scale of the wtc, yes, it would certainly take a lot of explosives. but i understand your point.

[libalchris]

Many think it is outlandish to believe in a 911 conspiracy. Yet isn't the belief in the official NIST story the more naive and gullible response? All the debunking videos that I have watched on here are crap! They just make up shit and twist the facts like any good corporate lawyer would do to defend his client's position. (that being U.S. gov and C.I.A).

What about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that started U.S. involvement in Vietnam. That was confessed to being a hoax about 15 years ago. It is not just the U.S government that pulls stunts like these. These cover-ups have been going on for a long time in many countries. To not see or accept that fact is like believing God loves you and is looking out for you along with your government.

911 was an inside job all the way, you can bank on it! The debunking "evidence" are all lies to patch up the holes in retrospect. And I'm sure the "experts" got paid very well by the Gov. to do so, and dissenters who spoke out got imprisoned or silenced.

So somehow, numerous demolitions were planted in the buildings without anyone noticing, they were set off without anyone hearing the sound, seeing any sort of demolition blast (the whole building fell exactly as you'd expect it to if it was simple structural failure due to the steel being weakened by fire.) You also have to believe that, somehow, the government managed to silence hundreds if not thousands of individuals who would have had to be in on this.

We're not relying on the official story, we're using common sense. Two airliners, fully loaded with jet fuel, crashed into two tall buildings, causing fires (as well as the fires that would be caused due to combustible materials in the building) caused additional damage to the steel, causing it to lose its integrity. All it would take would be enough damage to collapse ONE floor, to bring the whole building down.

Which one of those two scenarios seems more plausible?

[Shell B]

Jackman, at that heat, the water would evaporate very rapidly. Even as a cook, I saw plenty of evidence of that. My cooking surfaces often got red or white hot. It takes a substantial amount of water to stop it from heating up quickly. Just think of the cooling systems in engines. If water were really that much of a coolant, we could just pour water on our engines on long road trips. As it is, water cooled engines rely on the intake of water, not just a splash or a filler up. Hence the reason why certain boat motors that have been in fresh water need to be drained at a different temperature than those that have been in salt water when the weather gets cold, to prevent it from cracking.

As for the insulation, my understanding is that it was destroyed on impact. We have to remember that there was not just a fire or just a collision. There was a combination of both. We also have to take into account the amount of heat that would be generated by the collapse. Even bending metal rapidly makes it warm. Friction also causes it to heat up. Therefore, we have steel beams compromised to at least some degree by the impact, then the fire then the collapse itself to account for the structural compromise. As the top floors came down, they also generated plenty of heat and pushed the heat of the fire and its own friction/twisting down.

They were exceptional buildings. However, as is the case with so many things, everything about it was public knowledge. The individuals who took it down knew where to hit it. Being a terrorist does not mean you are stupid.

[Abishalom]

I presume you are talking about this point here. Well if that is the case this person does not mention the limitations of jet fuel which burns at about 200-300 degrees C in open air conditions (similar to WTC conditions) well below the temperature require to "severely compromise" steel.

Don't forget about other combustible materials in the towers. Also remember that Jet fuel typically burns at that temperature in open air conditions, but can burn much much hotter. Temperatures would fluctuate based on different circumstances throughout areas of the tower.

Apparently you didn't see my response to your "combustible materials inside" comment. The WTC had sprinklers on every floor, which would significantly reduced the intensity of the jet fueled fire.

[libalchris]

I presume you are talking about this point here. Well if that is the case this person does not mention the limitations of jet fuel which burns at about 200-300 degrees C in open air conditions (similar to WTC conditions) well below the temperature require to "severely compromise" steel.

Don't forget about other combustible materials in the towers. Also remember that Jet fuel typically burns at that temperature in open air conditions, but can burn much much hotter. Temperatures would fluctuate based on different circumstances throughout areas of the tower.

Apparently you didn't see my response to your "combustible materials inside" comment. The WTC had sprinklers on every floor, which would significantly reduced the intensity of the jet fueled fire.

Missed it. You do realize that in a collision that big, sprinkler systems would have been severely damaged, and temperatures would have been far greater than necessary to evaporate any water that was introduced to the environment.

[Shell B]

911 was an inside job all the way, you can bank on it! The debunking "evidence" are all lies to patch up the holes in retrospect. And I'm sure the "experts" got paid very well by the Gov. to do so, and dissenters who spoke out got imprisoned or silenced.

Tell me you are being facetious.

[Abishalom]

Missed it. You do realize that in a collision that big, sprinkler systems would have been severely damaged, and temperatures would have been far greater than necessary to evaporate any water that was introduced to the environment.

We're talking about 11-17 burning floors libalchris (planes hit on the 93rd and 99th floor of 110 story buildings). It's not like those sprinklers are powered by electricity (they react to heat).