d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Sept 11
Prev1242526272831Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Sep 11 2012 02:16pm
The steel did not fucking melt...
Member
Posts: 112,095
Joined: Jul 25 2008
Gold: 40.42
Sep 11 2012 02:17pm
Quote (thundercock @ 11 Sep 2012 15:16)
The steel did not fucking melt...


Weren't there a few pools of molten steel in the wreckage? I thought that was actually true.
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
Sep 11 2012 02:17pm
Quote (DViolent @ Sep 11 2012 03:08pm)
You dont find the melting point an issue? or the fact that they fell so nicely in there own places?

not saying i agree with the pic, but i mean, it does raise some points does it not?


I'd be happy to go through it point by point, but each has already been refuted in the threads in the OP.

I'm not claiming jet fuel melted steel. Jet fuel weakened steel. The pools of molten steel are properly explained in this lengthy, but highly detailed site: http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
Member
Posts: 6,689
Joined: Sep 13 2008
Gold: 156.00
Sep 11 2012 02:17pm
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Sep 11 2012 02:11pm)
Getting onto an airplane with a box cutter has nothing to do with our military. 

The buildings didn't fall at freefall rate. 

The molten steel has more to do with kinetic energy than the fires. 

They were attached to the same foundation so there's no surprise WTC7 fell. 

The buildings were designed to collapse like that.

The hijackers were on the manifests published in the Boston Globe (which is one of the only sources that ever claimed to have the manifests)

A few of the names were likely wrong, because almost all of the evidence burned the fuck up. 

The Pentagon doesn't need CCTVs around their perimeter. 

When a thousand people are all trying desperately to contact a cell tower, a small percentage of them will probably succeed.

Well, that was certainly easy.  Got any more shitty arguments?



It does not.  :(


Well thank you sir for a clear rebuttal. Seriously, it is nice not to have someone jump down my throat but instead give clear reasoning... +1 to you.

/edit ... just caught the line "got anymore shitty arguments"... thought i made a friend :( /edit

Quote (balrog66 @ Sep 11 2012 02:11pm)
It doesn't raise points at all, mostly because they're all wrong.


-1 to you....
Quote (Surfpunk @ Sep 11 2012 02:15pm)
Steel doesn't have to melt to not be able to support its rated load.
Fell nicely? Did you not see debris flying away from the towers' footprints as they fell?

As for the Pentagon, there is plenty of photographic evidence of aircraft parts at the site.


Can you give a link to pictures? not asking to be an ass, i just never really seen more then 2-3 pics of the pentagon afterwards..

This post was edited by DViolent on Sep 11 2012 02:19pm
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
Sep 11 2012 02:19pm
Quote (DViolent @ Sep 11 2012 03:17pm)
Can you give a link to pictures? not asking to be an ass, i just never really seen more then 2-3 pics of the pentagon afterwards..


Link to rense dot com in 3,2,1...

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

This post was edited by Santara on Sep 11 2012 02:19pm
Member
Posts: 3,657
Joined: Aug 26 2008
Gold: 437.68
Sep 11 2012 02:19pm
Quote (DViolent @ Sep 11 2012 04:08pm)
You dont find the melting point an issue? or the fact that they fell so nicely in there own places?

not saying i agree with the pic, but i mean, it does raise some points does it not?


From a Popular Mechanics article about 9/11 Conspiracies

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics
Member
Posts: 6,689
Joined: Sep 13 2008
Gold: 156.00
Sep 11 2012 02:20pm
Quote (xXAn0nym0usXx @ Sep 11 2012 02:19pm)
From a Popular Mechanics article about 9/11 Conspiracies

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842


<3 thank you sir.

/edit


Quote (Santara @ Sep 11 2012 02:19pm)
Link to rense dot com in 3,2,1...

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm


<3 thank you sir also!

This post was edited by DViolent on Sep 11 2012 02:22pm
Member
Posts: 14,099
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Gold: 83.30
Sep 11 2012 02:22pm
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Sep 11 2012 08:17pm)
Weren't there a few pools of molten steel in the wreckage?  I thought that was actually true.


It's probably not steel.

And quite a lot of those pictures were made when cleanup crew was busy, aka guys with the massive oxyacetylene/plasma torches cutting the steel in bits.

Other than that, shorting power lines can do some nasty damage, and if there were molten pools of metal they wouldn't be steel.
Member
Posts: 112,095
Joined: Jul 25 2008
Gold: 40.42
Sep 11 2012 02:23pm
Quote (balrog66 @ 11 Sep 2012 15:22)
It's probably not steel.

And quite a lot of those pictures were made when cleanup crew was busy, aka guys with the massive oxyacetylene/plasma torches cutting the steel in bits.

Other than that, shorting power lines can do some nasty damage, and if there were molten pools of metal they wouldn't be steel.


Ahh, that makes even more sense.

I just went with the whole wire hanger analogy, i.e. when you bend a hanger a lot til it breaks, the tips get pretty damned warm.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Sep 11 2012 02:23pm
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Sep 11 2012 12:17pm)
Weren't there a few pools of molten steel in the wreckage?  I thought that was actually true.


Not sure about that. However, these fools usually say that the steel columns would have to melt in order to collapse.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1242526272831Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll