How 9/11 was done

[9/11-investigator]

I'd like 911-investigator to tell the loved ones who received those phone calls they received were faked. They really need to know this startling information.

There is this heartwarming tendency among debunkers to protect the relatives against piety-less people like me and other truthers. You would be surprised though how many relatives do not buy the official story as well and are truthers themselves.

Moral: nobody needs your uncalled for chivalry.

 

[240-185]

You would be surprised though how many relatives do not buy the official story

Wrong.
Some of them raise questions and want to clarify about what happened, but a wide part of them accept that their relatives were killed by fundamentalist muslims.

 

[9/11-investigator]

As to the Twin Towers being brought down by controlled demoltion: 100% wrong. So you might begin to ask yourself why you would "believe" something that is impossible.

Huh, buildings are demolished in a controlled way all the time. And the knackers even get paid for it.

 

[9/11-investigator]

This is why in his fantasy there was nerve gas on board (no evidence for this, natch) which was somehow smuggled on board by Mossad operatives who then somehow managed to get off the planes (no evidence, of course).

Effect of nerve gas on a goat. Graphic (1950). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWyj5-IKl-k

Mission accomplished in 2 minutes.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What fell off from the Madrid tower was concrete, not steel, see video. As you can clearly see: the whole steel framework stood upright after the inferno.

This is false. The concrete frame of the core of the building survived entirely. The steel framed outer regions collapsed entirely. This is because steel framing is more susceptible to fire damage than concrete framing.

75% of the fuel was 'dumped on the floor', you claim, amidst a raging fire. This must have been inflammable fuel then! Highly interesting. Is it patented? I mean it is very safe for children! Great wonder though that these planes were able to fly at all on inflammable fuel.

It's a good idea not to be sarcastic when you're wrong. Putting aside your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "inflammable", an illogical aspect of the English language that it's hardly surprising you might make a mistake over, you should remember that flammable substances need oxygen in order to burn. The jet fuel fireball consumed all the oxygen available to it within the tower, and this was only enough to burn about 25% of the fuel. IIRC about another 15% emerged from the opposite side and burned outside the tower. Once all the oxygen was consumed, the remaining fuel was unable to burn until air had entered to replace it, which it couldn't do initially because the fireball created an overpressure within the building.

Just to emphasise how badly you've misread the situation, consider the well-known technique for putting out fires on oil rigs, where an explosive charge is detonated close to the source of the flames. This works in the open air, without building walls to make it more difficult for oxygen to reach the source of combustion.

A useful tip for the future is that, when a large number of people are claiming something that you believe to be stupid, you should check that you understand the situation adequately yourself.

Dave

 

[Dr Adequate]

There is this heartwarming tendency among debunkers to protect the relatives against piety-less people like me and other truthers. You would be surprised though how many relatives do not buy the official story as well and are truthers themselves.

So, perhaps you could name just one person who got one of the phone calls in question and thinks it was a fake.

No?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Effect of nerve gas on a goat. Graphic (1950). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWyj5-IKl-k

Mission accomplished in 2 minutes.

If I had asked for evidence of the existence of nerve gas, your post would have been an answer to mine.

As I didn't, it isn't.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Huh, buildings are demolished in a controlled way all the time.

But not using explosives that don't go "bang". Because they don't exist.

 

[dafydd]

Is this clown still at it? You people certainly have patience.You are wasting your time,he believes in his insane fantasy and his arguments are ridiculous.Entertaining though.

 

[9/11-investigator]

It's a good idea not to be sarcastic when you're wrong. Putting aside your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "inflammable", an illogical aspect of the English language that it's hardly surprising you might make a mistake over,

Never too old to learn. According to my Babylon it should have been nonflammable.

you should remember that flammable substances need oxygen in order to burn. The jet fuel fireball consumed all the oxygen available to it within the tower, and this was only enough to burn about 25% of the fuel. IIRC about another 15% emerged from the opposite side and burned outside the tower. Once all the oxygen was consumed, the remaining fuel was unable to burn until air had entered to replace it, which it couldn't do initially because the fireball created an overpressure within the building.

Let's do some simple math here. I found a random link here that says: 1 mass unit of diesel requires 15 mass units of air. I know that planes do not fly on diesel, but the ratio's will not differ much. I learned that on impact 38m3 fuel was left (not 60m3 as I claimed earlier). This means that some 40*15*1000 = 600,000 m3 air was necessary to burn this fuel. The fireball caused by the impact of the second plane easily had a volume of 600,000m3. I know that this was hot air (Boyle-Gay-Lussac and stuff), so this was lighter (maybe I'll do the math later).

Just to emphasise how badly you've misread the situation, consider the well-known technique for putting out fires on oil rigs, where an explosive charge is detonated close to the source of the flames. This works in the open air, without building walls to make it more difficult for oxygen to reach the source of combustion.

I appreciate that possibly not all fuel could be burned at once; what I do not see is that a considerable amount of fuel could 'survive' the initial inferno. Everything is glowing hot; according to my intuition everything should be burned in a short time span, time-constraint by the amount of air that is able to flow in from the outside. But burn it will. Soon. There is no such thing as hiding 30m3 of fuel in an empty coffee cup until the rage is over.

 

[dtugg]

So how again did they blow up the WTC? Magic silent explosives?

 

[GlennB]

What fell off from the Madrid tower was concrete, not steel, see video. As you can clearly see: the whole steel framework stood upright after the inferno. No weakening at all. And we do not want to assume that American architects are incompetent as compared to Spanish ones, do we. Que?

Dave Rogers has corrected your interpretation of the Madrid building's performance, yet you seem to have ignored him.

That building had a RC core structure, and such structural failures as occured were mainly in the steel outer members and some floor areas. The RC survived. I believe the words in the report were "performed admirably" but can't be bothered to look it up for the 20th time to correct a Truther who has totally misunderstood that fire and its implications for the WTC.

 

[A W Smith]

I appreciate that possibly not all fuel could be burned at once; what I do not see is that a considerable amount of fuel could 'survive' the initial inferno. Everything is glowing hot; according to my intuition everything should be burned in a short time span, time-constraint by the amount of air that is able to flow in from the outside. But burn it will. Soon. There is no such thing as hiding 30m3 of fuel in an empty coffee cup until the rage is over.

your intuition would be wrong. lets take an internal combustion engine for example. even in the best case scenario. In a combustion chamber and cylinder head "vessel" specifically designed for fast fuel combustion, 80 times a second. The problem is never the fuel. it is the flow of air into that cylinder. Add more fuel than the accepted fuel air ratio (six to one for methanol) or restrict just a bit of air and the combustion is extinguished. Ive seen it with my own eyes during the racing season. we call it wet pipes. not some of the combustion. all of it. so there is your fuel hiding in an empty coffee cup.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I appreciate that possibly not all fuel could be burned at once; what I do not see is that a considerable amount of fuel could 'survive' the initial inferno. Everything is glowing hot; according to my intuition everything should be burned in a short time span, time-constraint by the amount of air that is able to flow in from the outside. But burn it will. Soon. There is no such thing as hiding 30m3 of fuel in an empty coffee cup until the rage is over.

All this is correct. A large amount of fuel survived the initial deflagration, over a timescale of seconds. Once air was able to re-enter the building, the remaining fuel quickly began to burn. In doing so it set fire to the contents of the building, which also began to burn. It's likely the jet fuel was entirely consumed in a matter of minutes. The building contents then continued to burn until, and (in the rubble pile) after, the collapse. However, the majority of it survived the initial deflagration, so your comment that "the fireball represented all the fuel" is simply and categorically wrong.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

There is this heartwarming tendency among debunkers to protect the relatives against piety-less people like me and other truthers. You would be surprised though how many relatives do not buy the official story as well and are truthers themselves.

Moral: nobody needs your uncalled for chivalry.

The gist of my post, which obviously you missed, is that these people where fooled if you are correct. Find ONE, just ONE family member who received a phone call that they suspect was faked. I'll be waiting.

Your 'faked phone calls' theory is worthless.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

All this is correct. A large amount of fuel survived the initial deflagration, over a timescale of seconds. Once air was able to re-enter the building, the remaining fuel quickly began to burn. In doing so it set fire to the contents of the building, which also began to burn. It's likely the jet fuel was entirely consumed in a matter of minutes. The building contents then continued to burn until, and (in the rubble pile) after, the collapse. However, the majority of it survived the initial deflagration, so your comment that "the fireball represented all the fuel" is simply and categorically wrong.

Dave

Not to mention the fact that it didn't just sit in some puddle on the impact floors waiting for the fire to reach it, but rather seeped and in other cases traveled faster than a seep downwards. The fires noted in the elevator shafts are a testiment to this.

 

[SDC]

Whatever. But you do not seem to deny that Peter is a common name within the Jewish community. That was the point.

This theme has gone on long enough and really has little relevance. Actually, the person concerned said that Peter was not a common name, so you are twisting his statements. I have known Jews with the secular (legal) name of Peter, and Paul, at least in the US. (In the one case I can think of at the moment, a friend named Paul has a religious Hebrew name of Feivel ... which, I think, was originally a Yiddish not Hebrew name. The letter for "p" and "f" in unpointed [no vowels indicated] Hebrew is the same.)

The real point, 9-11 Investigator, is that you are making a very serious accusation against a particular, real, live, individual, and have provided no evidence whatsoever to support the accusation. Moreover, this is not a public person (like a politician, or celebrity), but would appear to be an ordinary civilian.

I don't know much of anything about the US laws of libel/ slander, but I think there would be grounds to believe you have transgressed them in this matter. Of course, if you could provide any evidence (hah!) that might change things.

 

[9/11-investigator]

But not using explosives that don't go "bang". Because they don't exist.

Very true, not explosives. Consider though, that although it was a controlled demolition it was not supposed to look like a controlled demolition. In official CD situations one does not have to consider sound levels. I am sure that it is possible to accomplish WTC-CD with 'civilized' sound levels.

Mind you, I will not attempt to market myself as a CD expert but if I watch this hilarious video clip where a flower pot with thermite eats itself through the engine of a car then I notice that there are no explosive sounds whatsoever. No doubt a similar effect can be accomplished with vertical steel beams without suggesting awkward truther types potential society destabilizing ideas.

For a couple of years.

 

[dtugg]

Very true, not explosives. Consider though, that although it was a controlled demolition it was not supposed to look like a controlled demolition. In official CD situations one does not have to consider sound levels. I am sure that it is possible to accomplish WTC-CD with 'civilized' sound levels.

Mind you, I will not attempt to market myself as a CD expert but if I watch this hilarious video clip where a flower pot with thermite eats itself through the engine of a car then I notice that there are no explosive sounds whatsoever. No doubt a similar effect can be accomplished with vertical steel beams without suggesting awkward truther types potential society destabilizing ideas.

For a couple of years.

So now it was thermite not explosives? So that must mean that the photo you were showing as proof of a controlled demolition actually isn't since thermite couldn't do that (pulverize concrete and send stuff flying). You just debunked yourself. Awesome.

Oh, and now you have to explain how they got the thermite to cut sideways. Getting it to cut through an engine block is easy because the thermite is always in contact with it and has gravity helping. To cut a vertical column, the evil joooooos would need to figure out away to get the extremely hot material to stay in contact with the column as its burning. I seriously doubt this is even possible. Perhaps you would like to show how they could do this. And then you have the problem of how these magical devices survived the impact and fires, since the collapses clearly started at the impact points.

 

[9/11-investigator]

The real point, 9-11 Investigator, is that you are making a very serious accusation against a particular, real, live, individual, and have provided no evidence whatsoever to support the accusation. Moreover, this is not a public person (like a politician, or celebrity), but would appear to be an ordinary civilian.

I don't know much of anything about the US laws of libel/ slander, but I think there would be grounds to believe you have transgressed them in this matter. Of course, if you could provide any evidence (hah!) that might change things.

Again your concern to protect the good reputation of a guy under whose supervision no less than 3 planes were destroyed is touching, albeit somewhat tempered by the fact that this guy has the potential to destroy your little theory. I wish you displayed a similar concern regarding innocent people who got tortured in Abu-Graibh or waterboarded in American Gulags on the basis of the mindless acceptance of said little theory. And do not give me this WMD story (another falsification), attempts were made to also link Saddam to Al-Qaida/Mohamed Atta.