zeitgeist

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
An Affirming Flame
Offline
Joined: 22-09-11
Sep 27 2013 00:55

Dammmmnnn! Fleur, I think TAEHSAEN's grandkids are gonna feel that one.

redsdisease
Offline
Joined: 31-12-10
Sep 27 2013 06:36
Mr. Jolly wrote:
But what about building 7?

I never really could understand why conspiracy theorists harp so much on the building seven thing as it doesn't really fit with any of the other suggested motives behind the conspiracy. What do they think the government would have gained by exploding that extra building?

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:34

asfsagggg

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 27 2013 07:42
Quote:
Either you think you’re some sort of messiah and we’re supposed to take your word for everything (once again, back up your claims), or you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, OR you are a compulsive liar

Make YOUR choice Fleur. Although, personally, I'd go with number one if I was you.

Also, this is DEFINITELY true:

Quote:
You seem like the kind of person who believes that all muslims are violent.

Now watch our video please. Please. cry

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 27 2013 07:18
Quote:
Well honey, do YOU understand simple real life physics that even children can understand?

Well, fuck me, as if the rape analogy wasn't enough, TAE has not only divined your gender Fleur, but you're "honey" now, too. Bad form TAE. BAD FORM.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 27 2013 07:44
Quote:
Are you serious? I just provided a BBC article link showing a hijacker “being alive and well”. Maybe my point was that he was never the hijacker in the first place. Here, I’ll post the link again. This time, please go through all my links before trying to refute me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

You jackass, it doesn't say he was a hijacker who survived the crash. It says it was a case of mistaken identity or two people with the same name. Again, government incompetence does not = conspiracy. Trust me, I've lived and worked in more than one country. Government bureaucracies are far from failsafe at this type of thing, especially if two people have the same name and the same job.

Also, what's the point if if a passport survived? The government left it there? Why? I mean, Jesus, the whole world saw the planes hit. Osama took credit for it. They don't need f*cking passports to prove their case and get what they want out of the attack.

It seems like you can't have it both ways: the government can't be so effective at conspiracies to create this massive spectacle yet, at the same time, be stupid enough to allow their story to be a disproven with a passport that they apparently left there intentionally?

And, finally, here's the other thing I can't understand: you don't need a conspiracy to explain how fucked up the US government is. I mean, the CIA trained Bin Laden - a long-time religious extremist - to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Once his usefulness was done, they dumped him. Years later, he used his CIA training to attack America in retaliation for it's imperialism in the Middle East. You don't exactly need a conspiracy to discredit the US here.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:35

ggggddsheeew

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Sep 27 2013 08:11

Truth boy -

So Chilli sauce "misunderstands you, man" but Fleur (I mean sorry, "honey") doesn't "understand simple real life physics that even children can understand?" is "manipulative", doesn't have "sound" reasoning, has a "low level of maturity" and just to throw in there, is also a racist.

You sexist butthole.

Also, you say yourself that you're not a maths or physics expert. Is it possible that Fleur, BUT A SIMPLE WOMAN, could have more knowledge than you on this?

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 27 2013 12:42
TAEHSAEN wrote:
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
*cracks fingers. Bring it on conspiracy boy*

1. Jet fuel cannot melt steel in the open air.
It was far hotter than if it was in the open air. Even of you had a puddle on the ground, only the outside edges would be in the open air. In the middle heat can't escape, since there's already flames surrounding it. ie the middle of the flame is hotter. However, crashes which happen, in what you call the open air, often result in molten metal. Try googling the 1985 Manchester air craft crash sites or the the Paris crash of Concorde or indeed air craft crash sites in general. .

Let me humbly begin by stating that I am no physics expert. Moreover, your reasoning is valid, HOWEVER, it is NOT sound. You used very simplistic reasoning to "prove" that the steel melted because the twin towers turned into a furnace. However, you do not have any real evidence to back up your claim, nor do you have any ACTUAL math to back up your claim. A friend of mine pointed out that the entire steel structure acted as a heat sink, so it would be impossible for the fuel to burn that hot (even if your claims about an active furnace is correct). The only way the temperatures could have risen that high was if explosives were involved. And unfortunately, that was the case. Moreover, I came across ACTUAL MATH to back up my claim (that the fuel alone could not have produced such temperatures), whereas you do not. Check this out and see for yourself:
"http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm"

So to me, your claim about the fuel producing enough heat to melt metal is false (since its physically impossible for the fuel to have done that by itself, without explosives being involved).

MOREOVER, I just spent 20 minutes googling for "1985 manchester air craft molten steel" and such. I found no evidence / indications of molten steel there. Maybe I might have missed something (if so, do send me a link), but from the looks of things, you just blindly threw this argument at me to make your argument seem stronger, when in reality, you had no idea what you were talking about. A very cheap tactic indeed.

The "molten steal" thing has been dealt with before eg http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445988 http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm basically any molten metal is more likely aluminum, also you are wrong about explosives, explosives do not melt steal, they break it apart.

TAEHSAEN wrote:
Quote:
3.Why did the buildings fall at free fall?
They didn't. Get your terminology right. There is conjecture that they actually fell faster than free-fall. There was an active mechanism pulling them down, as a consequence of fire caused implosion because there wasn't enough oxygen as a consequence of the furnace-like conditions inside the Twin Towers. It was sucking air in. Have you ever held a newspaper sheet in front of a fireplace? If not, try it. It gets sucked in towards the fire. It's simple high-school physics.

So at this point, I can only think of three things. Either you think you’re some sort of messiah and we’re supposed to take your word for everything (once again, back up your claims), or you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, OR you are a compulsive liar. Even NIST admits that WTC fell at free fall speed in their final report.

“NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.
So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”

there are not 607 pages in the NIST report on building 7 or in the report on the towers and building 7 together, the bit where free fall is mentioned says

Quote:
The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors
clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.
A more detailed analysis of the descent of
the north face found three stages: (1) a slow
descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the
exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at
gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the
north face encountered resistance from the structure below.

and you think this contradicts the the idea that i fell because of a fire how? what do you expect to happen between the supports giving way and the upper part hitting the rest of the building? Saying you where no physics expert was clearly understatement

You call other people liers and tell them to do research, but clearly you have done no research your self rather just accepting the conspiracy theory's without thought, and repeating blatantly false information.Sometimes i have to wonder if some of the conspiracy theory crap is not made up to show how credulous people like you really are.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Sep 27 2013 13:43
TAEHSAEN wrote:
Well honey

Is it in poor taste to tell this guy to eat shit?

hansolo14
Offline
Joined: 27-09-13
Sep 27 2013 14:10

All 3 buildings, fell @ free fall speed, you don't have to be a genius to realize that! The question to be asked, is what can make steel framed building fall @ such speed? The very first part of any scientific endeavor, is observation, unfortunately, for those conspiracy theorist, who follow the poor explanation of the government, are the ones that ought to question themselves! I affirm they are surely not left, to swallow the lies of a criminal government hook line and sinker! Building that fall because of office fires, and no steel building ever had, before that day, they would certainly respect the law of physics and would fall asymmetrically!
Let's leave that for a few minutes, let s look at the term conspiracy theory, a term invented by the CIA, to push ppl away from the notion that JFK, had been assassinated by the very CIA, who coined that phrase! It is use now, to demonize and to invalidate contradicting opinions! These two events are very connected, and as many well know, Noam Chomsky, is out to lunch, on both of these events! I would suggest you look to Professor Michael Parenti, his writings on Conspiracies! Both of these acts, are profoundly important, cause they shape the consciousness of generations! They also steer the government on a new path, with the recent events, away from the RED SCARE, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, along with it, the "Socialist Block", as important, the international left as well! A new direction was to be forged, so with that in mind, the US WAR MACHINE, had to create their new enemy, and they have! War on terror, which means nothing, simply a collection of words, but to analyze the wording, it would mean, let's have war on a tactic, by applying the very same tactics, TERRORIZING POPULATIONS, abroad as well as at home! For the buffoons who can't understand 9/11, who can't place it, in its proper context, it will take them a whole life time, of writing on blogs, defending the criminal state, and still have the audacity to call themselves left! [b]POVERTY OF THE LEFT THINKING [/b] There is an easy way to really solve 9/11, which I will not disclose here, certainly not now, but for ppl to say Osama took responsibility, which is a bold faced lie, more importantly, the Taliban told the Criminal gang in Washington, show us the proof, we will hand him over! It took the US 444 days, before launching a formal "investigation", FACT, not the crime scene being studied, no, why would they, they instead do a COMMISSION, as they had done for JFK, for Waco and many others, these commissions have one purpose, yep, to hide the facts! Historically they have!

Finally, the role of government is to conspire, to lie, to cheat and steal from the population, to disarm the working class, and yes, to perpetrate their existence at all cost! Sadly to say, even the so-called left governments have done the same things!!
Those who are dogmatic, can not change the world, they fear the truth, and must look for safe places to hide! DARE THINK!!!
Good read, John Stockwell, in search of enemies!
go to Facebook and check Rethink911
Dialectical Materialism and historical materialism are the tools, but they must be sharpened with the reality of the day, you must adapt quickly or become extinct!

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Sep 27 2013 14:37

Well, that told you lot!

(Also, I was as surprised as anyone to learn that libcom apparently already had thirteen users registered under the name hansolo.)

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Sep 27 2013 15:07
TAEHSAEN wrote:
NOT ANYTHING TZM ADDED DEFINITELY CAREFULLY BOTH WHY ALL HAVEN'T

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 27 2013 16:34

I'm going to do this in several bite sized pieces, partly because my internet connection is a bit dicey today and I would hate to have to type this out more than once and also because I'm working, which incidentally involves using a furnace to make molten metals. That kind of needs my attention so I will be coming and going from this.

Chilli Sauce

Quote:
Quote:
Either you think you’re some sort of messiah and we’re supposed to take your word for everything (once again, back up your claims), or you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, OR you are a compulsive liar
Make YOUR choice Fleur. Although, personally, I'd go with number one if I was you.

But I'm not the Messiah! I'm just a very naughty girl laugh out loud

Truthy Boy:

May I call you Sweetie? I figure that you call me Honey we must be on familiar terms.Btw, if you're going to be so kind as directing me to external websites please go to the trouble of putting in actual links. I can't be bothered to type in complicated URLs in order to try and locate, what I imagine are paranoid ramblings.
I understand, it is quite normal when having your belief systems challenged to react with anger and denial, however I will reiterate and explore some of that new fangled sciency stuff involved in the collapse of the WTC.
I suggest you hone your search engine skills, it took me less than a minute to find the official accident report on the Manchester air crash. I'm not going to find you the Concorde report, it'll be in French anyway and whereas I don't mind doing a bit of translation work, I really can't be bothered to do it for this purpose.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/8-1988%20G-BGJL.pdf

Page 127, para 2.6.3 to page 130 para 2.6.4 explains that it was a typical static pooled fuel fire involving modest amounts of fuel ie fuel tank ruptured and explodes and the fuel catches fire outside the aircraft. This crash happened on take-off, it hadn't even left the ground and within a minute of the plane coming to a halt the fire had penetrated the whole of the cabin. It's fast and it's hot.
In relation to the molten steel, which perplexes you so much, page 32 para1.12.1.4. (it's a pdf and won't let me copy-paste, so you'll have to read it yourself) the bit from
"Left lower wing aft surfaces.....to.....were melted."
The the outer surfaces of the wing are made of aluminium BUT THE STRUTS ARE MADE OF STEEL. They were gone, melted away. And just to be clear that the Manchester air crash wasn't a government conspiracy and the report isn't a secret service cover-up, this plane crash changed the aviation industry, every inch of that plane was examined and multiple recommendations from it have been implemented as international safety laws as a result. This crash changed the industry and my world expert, highly skilled, very well qualified and massively experienced air crash expert HAS SEEN AND EXAMINED THE WRECKAGE. The steel supports were melted, which means they must have been molten, made liquid by the temperatures generated by burning aviation fuel. This was on the tarmac, not in the as already explained furnace-like conditions inside the WTC.
Also, did you even bother to read what I said before you decided to dismiss my "simplistic reasoning" which is actually more commonly known as thermodynamics? I said

Quote:
Also, do you know why jet engine high pressure turbines are not made out made out of steel? It's because aviation fuel burns hot enough to melt it.

Do you understand how an engine works? Quite reasonable if you don't, most people get into their cars without the faintest knowledge of how they work. It's called internal combustion, there's a clue in the word "combustion." It means BURN. In the case of an engine it's a controlled burn but nevertheless burning fuel. Which is why jet engine high pressure turbines are not made of steel because the heat of the aviation fuel BURNING will reduce it to molten metal. Other parts of an aircraft are made of steel, such as the frame which the skin is built around but they are parts which are well out of the way of the BURNING FUEL.
Let us examine what you mean by "Open air burn." Open air burn is a concept which was used, but has been defunct for decades, in architecture and civil engineering. It was something used in relation to installation of such things as wood-burning stoves in buildings. It is no longer something which is used in building codes. I can only assume the Truther architect, who's name I still can't be bothered to look up, was not a very good architect or one who took much notice in more recent developments in his field. I'm sure it's absolutely fine in determining safety standards in wood burning stoves, or maybe not seeing as nobody, except perhaps wood-burning stove installation specialists, uses it anymore, but when it comes to burning aviation fuel, people use thermodynamics. As I already explained, you cannot have "open air burn" - go see my puddle on the ground analogy. Not unless the thing which is burning is spread molecule thin, which I can only assume the girders in the WTC weren't. Only the very outside is exposed to the air. Light a match, look at the flame, only the outside is exposed to the air, the bulk of it is not, that is why it is hotter in the middle.
If you want to define open air as adiabatic, which means constant pressure, as in the puddle analogy, then aviation fuel (Jet A ) has a adiabatic flame temperature of approx 2100 degrees centigrade. The maximum melting temperature of any steel is 1540 degrees centigrade. I can attest that steel does indeed melt at lower temperatures than the flame temperature of aviation fluid because I've done it myself with an oxy acetylene torch. Please don't try this at home unless you know what you are doing.
My expert has kindly examined the conspiracy theorists' math for you and the mathematics itself is fine but the underlying assumptions, such as ignoring the heat transfer rate of concrete, are fundamentally flawed and excessively simplistic. An undergraduate certainly would be failed for making these flawed assumptions. In W/mK, light concrete has a coefficient of 0.1 - 0.3 (almost nothing) , carbon steel is 43. It is very different, hence why I am asserting it is like a furnace. So the concrete is a very good insulator, keeping the heat within the floors and ceiling, made of concrete. It's like a furnace. The heat is not escaping. The math "proving" the case for the conspiracy theory totally ignores this. But, apparently it is really funny to read.
To put it in context, the 10,000 litres of jet fuel the planes were estimated to be carrying at the time of impact ( the 767 can carry as much as 91,400 litres) and taking the latent heat of fusion of steel as 2.72 E05 JKg and specific heat capacity of 0.466 J/gK there was sufficient energy produced to melt 354000 Kg of steel (approx 70% of all the steel in one of the floors turned to a puddle.) I'm not saying that it melted this much, not even nearly, it has the potential to melt this much. But even a minute fraction of this would be enough to bring down the building. My friendly expert has refused to do the math to calculate just how hot it got in there because the official report has already done this very well and he's not doing it himself. It'll take about a month to do and quite reasonably doesn't feel this would be a valuable use of his time.

And when I come back, I will be using my "filthy tactics" to explain thermites.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 27 2013 18:20

This is quickly becoming thread of the year.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:35

wwwwww

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 27 2013 20:21

Mwahahaha! Back to my devious manipulations.

Nanothermites, thermites and explosions.

Before I go into this, let's investigate Scholars for 9/11 Truth, from which much of the so-called evidence is culled, or more specifically the man who heads it up Steven E Jones. He is a physicist or at least he was until Brigham Jones (Mormon) University put him on administrative leave in 2006, citing him for increasingly speculative and accusatory work and, more significantly, not allowing peer review of his work or publishing anything in scientific journals. Presumably his theses in Let's All Hide Under The Bed Monthly were not of a satisfactory standard. His other notable scientific endeavours include interpreting ancient Mayan evidence to scientifically prove for sure that Jesus Christ did indeed visit America. It appears he's too Mormon for Brigham Jones, who have made themselves clear the want no association with any of his 9/11 theories. But they're probably in on the conspiracy too. His steadfast refusal to submit any of his research on the subject to any peer review at any reputable scientific journal should at the very least throw up some red flags.
There is also Judy Woods, she is actually a mechanical engineer but she specializes in dentistry. Her hypothesis about the how the towers fell wasn't entirely unfounded, except she forgot to take momentum into account.

Anyway, nanothermites. Now I can't honestly be bothered to go back and find which post nanothermites came up but what they are are tiny (hence nano) explosive particles, which Truther wisdom has were sprayed all over the floors and ceilings prior to the attack (or detonation) which is why the WTC went up in flames and fell down so violently. If we can just get past the idea that sometime in the few days leading up to 9/11, a bunch of people went into the WTC and coated the place with nanothermites, presumably unnoticed by the thousands of people who worked there, the biggest problem with this theory is that nanothermites do actually appear to be total fantasy. Now, people have been working in nanotechnology and also working with thermites but apparently nanothermites are a top secret, hush-hush, military tech and they were used covertly to bring down the WTC.
There are, however nanothermites which have been recovered from the WTC. And guess who has them? Steven E Jones and his buddies.They are what he refers to in his paper as red/grey chips and I can only assume that they are of no relation to the red/grey chips analyzed by other scientists and discovered to be rust-inhibiting paint primer. Of course if Steven E Jones would submit his nanothermite samples for independent analysis or have his research reviewed by someone who has not got a vested interest in the Truther movement, it might clear things up. For the time being though, it does look suspiciously like nanothermites is a Made Up Thing. Show us the nanothermites Steven E Jones. If you have some, prove it.

Thermites, these are real. They are used in controlled demolitions, pyrotechnics (I love those) etc. One of the reasons this is a popular idea is that thermites cause white smoke. I'm sure you've all seen it coming off fireworks. But so does a lot of other stuff. Like aluminium, such as the around about 40,000 kg of aluminium in a Boeing 767. I do do know what colour smoke aluminium gives off - it's white- because I've accidentally set fire to some. Oops. Or the colour the titanium in the engines burn at. In fact all sorts of vaporized stuff gives off white smoke.
One of the things Jones et al have seized upon is the large presence of 1,2-diphenylpropane molecules in far higher concentrations than expected. This was sourced from an EPA report by Erik Swartz. What Jones declined to include in his paper was Swartz's conclusion that was present as a result of the burning of tens of thousands of computers.
I have here a paper from the American Chemical Society (an actual reputable body) on the chemical compositions of computers, for recycling/waste-management purposes.

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/3641/2/Energy_and_Fuels_2006.pdf

As you can see, 1,2-diphenylpropane is present in most of the plastic components of computers, for example 1.4% of the back cover of a computer is 1,2-diphenylpropane. It's also in PVC. Multiply these small percentages by tens of thousands and you you will find a substantial amount.

The sounds of explosions. As referenced in the Zeitgeist film (yes, I've seen your shitty movie and I will come back to it later) people heard things exploding. That would be another one from the No Shit Sherlock file. When buildings are on fire, some of the things inside explode. Most large buildings have electrical transformers. The WTC had many 13,000 volt transformers which were used in the ventilation system, primarily for air conditioning. When they are in a fire they explode. Actually, when a house is on fire things explode, like the AC units, appliances. Very few people are able to identify what the actual explosion is. How many people are familiar enough with different explosive sounds to be able to tell what it is? Even firefighters in that situation can't tell what the explosions are. That is why they do investigations afterwards. And if you are going to bring up the firefighters, which pretty disgusting of you given that so many of them lost their lives and so many must have known when they went into those buildings that they had scant chance of survival, by far the majority of the NYFD have no truck with your crazy theories and it is a complete and utter disrespect to use them and their dead co-workers to make your utterly unsubstantiated speculations.
When a transformer on the next street blew in a freezing rain storm a couple of years back it made a terrific bang. Could be easily mistaken for a detonation or a bomb, if you don't know what they sound like and most people don't. I jumped out of my skin but since I was in earshot of this one going off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing

I pretty much realized it wasn't someone blowing shit up. But most of the time explosions are scary and bewildering things. I'm not surprised they caused confusion on 9/11.
So, I never suggested that there were no explosions at the WTC. Only a complete idiot would imagine that a towering inferno wouldn't include explosions. The idiocy I was disagreeing with was that they were set off in the form of a demolition or a bomb in the basement. The foundations of the buildings, the footprint ie the basement was remarkably intact given what happened. I have already suggested that sound is transmitted through solid objects, which would make it sound like loud noises from above were coming from the basement. But there was no catastrophic explosion in the basement which could have caused building collapse. There were electrical transformers however. When they blow they make a dramatic noise but they don't on their own do much damage. Not like a 767 flying into the building would.

And that's where I'm leaving it for now, Poppet, because I have an actual life to be getting on with. I will be back with my opinions on your crappy movie and why your opinion that OBL and Al Qaeda didn't do 9/11 is utter bullshit.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 27 2013 20:21
Quote:
However, my point is that you are misusing your knowledge in these fields to go out of your way to justify something that you know has something wrong to it.

Yeah, so...take that.

Also, but what about building 7? Hmmm....how do you explain that one? Oh, oops, you already did. embarrassed

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 27 2013 20:24

And I cross posted with your post but I can't be bothered to read it now because I'm busy, although I will say that it is impossible to look at any argument which is bad science, paranoia, misinformation and lacking in any decent analysis of how government and capitalism actually works with anything approaching an open mind.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 27 2013 20:31

But briefly "lower wing aft surfaces" refers not to the tail but the wing. The clue is in the word "wing." And I used the word strut because it was a word I thought you might understand. That report was written by and for professional engineers working in the aerospace industry. They all know how an aircraft is constructed. They don't need it spelt old in excruciating detail, they are not lay-people, they know what it means. The steel supporting structure inside the plane was melted away. Or do you think they made that up too? Or that planes don't use steel in their frame construction? That's a fabrication as well?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 27 2013 20:33
redsdisease wrote:
Mr. Jolly wrote:
But what about building 7?

I never really could understand why conspiracy theorists harp so much on the building seven thing as it doesn't really fit with any of the other suggested motives behind the conspiracy. What do they think the government would have gained by exploding that extra building?

Exactly Redsdisease. Exactly.

Cooked's picture
Cooked
Offline
Joined: 6-04-10
Sep 27 2013 20:39

What's with the melting thing? Steel very quickly loose it's structural capacity when heat is applied. Way before they melt, and I mean waaay before, the steel columns in a building will give and buckle. Obviously the steel would have been fire protected in some way, which I'm sure is described in some report. But most of that stuff would just burn off at the first whiff of jetfuel.

I'm guessing I haven't read the stuff above in enough detail to understand why the melting is of importance. Fleur why light concrete in your estimation of k-values above? Surely the floor and core would have been structural concrete with at best a k value of 1.5? Not that it makes a difference for your argument.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 27 2013 21:52

I'm going to come back to this later when I'm not cooking dinner but

Cooked:
The melting thing is that it's a big part of the conspiracy that molten metal was found in the WTC and they argue that a plane crashing into the building couldn't have generated enough heat to cause steel to melt. Obviously, as you say, the metal would yield and buckle before it melted and most of the girders recovered at the site were twisted, not melted. That some of the supports appeared to be cleanly sheared at a classic 45 degree angle is used as "evidence" that thermites were used as cutting agents, as opposed to it being a natural fracture caused by the principle tensile stress load.
As for the k-value of concrete, I have to say that's sheer laziness on my part. I was simply using the concrete type quoted in one of these Truther analyses of how the building came down. It's almost certain that they did use a higher density concrete, however it wouldn't have made all that much difference to my point. I should probably have not taken this as The Truth, given that this particular analysis came to the conclusion that a 767 hitting the Towers would have only raised the temperature in the building by a maximum of 258 degrees centigrade and hence couldn't melt metal and would have no impact on the building integrity. I can post you a link to this particular report if you like but I can't do it right now because it's not bookmarked on the computer I'm using right now and I don't want to wade through all the hundreds of fantasies again. It is funny though.

An Affirming Flame
Offline
Joined: 22-09-11
Sep 27 2013 22:08

Open your eyes to the real Truth: 9/11 was caused by a Balrog. The dwarves of Manhattia delved too greedily and too deep, awakening shadow and flame. It's obvious to anyone who looks at the subject with an open mind. I'm working on a film that explains everything. It'll be available for purchase once I clear up a rights issue with the Tolkien estate.

Seriously though, 9/11 was a massive event with massive ramifications. There will always be some measure of ambiguity surrounding such enormously complicated happenings. That doesn't mean one should throw out all actual evidence and just make shit up. That's what the main Truthers do, taking advantage of most peoples' shallow understanding of complicated, sciency things and willingness to entertain alternative "explanations." I'm sure with enough motivation and time I could sufficiently exploit ambiguities and seeming-contradictions in the 9/11 events that would convince some gullible people of the Balrog thing.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 28 2013 00:11

A Balrog? Surely it was The Mother of Dragons who showed up with her fantastic offspring?

I really do have very short windows of time to post right now and I'm hoping that my Friday night doesn't turn out to be a total bust.

I'm not at all surprised that 9/11 Truthers are so entrenched in their beliefs because it's getting harder and harder to find anything online which contradicts this. If you try searching for anything you'll come up with hundreds of pages of this stuff and anything else is pushed further down the rankings. This is possibly as a result of conspiracy theorists compulsively checking and pushing these sites up the rankings or, and probably far more likely, most people have just moved on. It was 12 years ago. I was trying to link to an article about Erik Swartz but it was just 404ed. It had been taken down. A lot of stuff has happened since 9/11 and people have other things to do than obsess about something which happened over decade ago.
An Affirming Flame is right, Truthers do take advantage of people's narrow understanding but there's also other stuff in there, such as anomalies which defy any obvious explanation. But that's part of every day life, there's always stuff which cannot be adequately explained. We simply do not and cannot know everything about everything. The passport thing for example. No-one was objectively observing what happened to it and how it got there. They also found the severed arms of a flight attendant on the ground, unburnt and still bound with plastic ties, unmelted. Is anyone really going to suggest that black-ops put those on the ground too? The trouble with Truthers is that they take these oddities and where there is a void of absolute knowledge, they fill it with supposition and that becomes The Truth. There will never be a full and complete knowledge about 9/11 because no-one was in a position to objectively observe it. They were either running for their lives, dying or in the case of the firefighters, who this theory so disrespects, running into the buildings. No-one can tell us what it was like in the floors above or adjacent to the planes because they're all dead. You can piece together camera footage and sift through the debris but a complete account cannot be had. The Truthers want to make one and it's bad enough what happened without making things up, based on a flawed version of the world and an infantile need to explain the unexplainable. You talk about having an "open mind" but there's nothing more closed minded than not being able to accept that you don't know everything and taking that absence of the absolute and filling with something with something which is essentially quite absurd in order to fit it into your theories.
9/11 really did change the world in so many ways but it didn't change the way the world works. It's the same shit. People find conspiracy theories comforting because it represents a really simple way of explaining this shit and proposes some really simple solutions. Only, it's not really a conspiracy is it? It's all out there in plain sight but it's all a little bigger than a cabal of shady interests, whether it's made up of the Carlyle Group, Rothschilds, the Lizard Kings or whoever. The bankers are not pulling all the strings, the banks are just one part of the functions of capitalism but it's a bit big isn't it? It's far easier to imagine there's a conspiracy of a discrete group of interests orchestrating this. If only we could defeat these guys, it'll all be alright. None of this stands up to any serious scrutiny and anything which contradicts automatically comes under the conspiracy umbrella. You don't agree, that's because you're just too stupid, naive to get it. Or your part of it. I mean really?

Quote:
However, my point is that you are misusing your knowledge in these fields to go out of your way to justify something that you know has something wrong to it.

Why the fuck would I want to misuse knowledge.....to justify something that that I know has something wrong to it? How the hell do you know or presume to know what I think? Do you really think that I'm trying to brainwash you, subvert your thinking? Do you think I'm "one of them?" I know there's nothing wrong with the science behind how the towers fell, as far as we are able to ascertain, because again we will never know everything. Do you really think all those people experienced, educated, qualified, knowledgeable years ahead of the events of 9/11 are really just trying to pull the wool over our eyes, bending the laws of physics and engineering, or were educated and skilled in fake theories and science simply to be able to fool the people in the future? Do you really think that the vast majority of scientific opinion, people who really know their stuff are lying? Or stupid? And don't go quoting the Scholars for 9/11 at this point, not only are they the minority but their theories do not stand up to scrutiny. If it did THEY WOULD PUBLISH IT PROPERLY.

I will come back and critique your movie and explain why it's obvious that OBL and Al Qaeda were behind 9/11. Meanwhile, I'm having some beers.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 28 2013 18:03

TAEHSAEN:

I've just had a moment of clarity in relation to why you are so obsessed with the passport and why you think it's really significant. I couldn't work out why you were so fixated on minutia. Firstly, you do realize that one of those planes penetrated the tower so far that the nose came out the other side? Where do people keep their passports? On or very close to their person. The force of impact would have thrown everything forward, think of a car crash but multiply it. The change in pressure from the impact and blast would have put the windows out, at the very least and stuff in the cockpit would have been propelled out. But that's not the important thing. You keep referring to the fact that it was intact, that's because you think the plane went up in a fireball, which would have incinerated everything. You've seen the footage, there's a really spectacular ball of fire on impact. However it doesn't take a lot of fuel to generate a big fire. If you had read the Manchester report, you will see that a whole plane in a few minutes went up on only "a modest amount of fuel." If you look at a Zippo lighter, you get a big flame from a minute amount of lighter fluid. That fireball was not the whole fuel tank going up.

Quote:
In the case of the twin towers however, ALL the fuel exploded in a ball of fire - causing a fire inside the building to start.

It didn't.
We've all seen disaster movies with really big and impressive explosions ( I really liked the A-Team movie. No-one else did but there were some really impressive explosions in that one) but real life doesn't actually behave like the movies. Not only did it NOT go up in an instantaneous fireball, if it did no-one would be talking about how the towers FELL.
This idea is complete nonsense because 10,000 litres of jet fuel cannot burn in an instant. Total energy generated by burning fuel is not time dependent, only the heat transfer of absorption is time dependent. So no matter how long it took for the fuel to burn it would create the same amount of energy.
If it all burnt out at once in this hypothetical fireball, this is called an explosion, it would have the same energy as if it burnt out more slowly, except if this happened the materials in the building wouldn't have absorbed it as heat, it would have just been a force on it as it expanded. It would have then been very far from an adiabatic combustion, because you are now changing the pressures. IT WOULD HAVE BLOWN THE BUILDING APART INSTANTLY. This did not happen, nor could it have. It is a hypothetical scenario. 10,000 liters cannot all burn instantaneously, go up all together at the same time, it's impossible, there simply isn't enough oxygen. We've already gone over that things don't burn in the "open air" only the surface area burns. And even, hypothetically if the aviation fuel was spread molecule thin and it all went up, there wouldn't have been enough oxygen available for it to combust. If it all went up, it would have instantly sucked the so much air from the building it would have asphyxiated people. This did not happened. Some discussion here about whether or not the towers would implode or explode at this point but they didn't. It burned at the rate aviation fuel always burns at. There was no special kind of magic to make it do otherwise.
I know it looks like a giant fireball engulfed the plane, especially in the zeitgeist movie where they show them slamming into the buildings again and again and have have superimposed those side effects on it - no-one heard those noises on the ground. Whether they foleyed it with generic explosion side effects or taken the actually sounds and altered and amplified them, that wasn't what people on the ground heard. People see things in the movies and special effects are really good now so they think they know what a giant fireball of exploding fuel looks like. And it would look to them that the flash bang of the plane impact in those towers look like that. But you can't make fuel burn any faster than it burns at. You can't make a lump of coal burn faster than a lump of coal burns at. It's the same with aviation fuel. It's about oxygen availability and there is a speed of flame, a maximum speed of chemical reaction. If it were even possible that it all went up at the same time, then refinery fires would flame out instantly. They don't, they take days to put out. Similarly, the train full of heavy fuel oil which crashed into Lac Mégantic last month took biggest part of a week to put out. Even if vaporized, which it wasn't, 10,000 liters of aviation fuel would take the same amount of time to burn no matter what the circumstances. If this was the case, fuel would be so unstable we wouldn't be able to use it at all. Fortunately this is not the case.
So the passport, not only could it easily have been propelled out and away from the building, the idea that it can't exist because all the jet fuel went up and incinerated everything is built on a fallacy.

Other points.
Your evidence for why explosives had to be used. Why didn't it fall in the path of least resistance. Firstly, as already explained, there was an active force bringing it down. If there were explosives in the basement as you suggest, in order to bring such a big building down they would have had left evidence of large, active explosions. The footprints of the towers were remarkably intact given the circumstances. And why would you assume the path of least resistance was anything but down? Because of a hole in the side near the top which was very small in relation to both the surface area of the exterior and the surface area of the floorspace? That hole would have made very little difference. As opposed to the collapsing, pan-caking floors beneath. As the towers collapsed they were being contained and guided by the metal girders which made a frame for the building, which up until the point of collapse were keeping enough structural integrity to hold it up. It would crash the direction of least support and follow the path of maximum load. And buildings do collapse onto themselves, such as high-rise buildings collapsing onto themselves during earthquakes. No, they weren't built by 10 year olds with Lego but no-one was playing Jenga with them either. They were never designed to withstand 767s slamming into them, you argue that they were designed to high safety standards and couldn't possibly be brought down by this. Putting aside that they took a lot of damage in the first Al Qaeda attack in 92 and that it's impossible to design a building not to take substantial damage in an explosion, kind of no shit they were destroyed. Nobody took the idea that someone would turn a plane full of fuel into a missile and fly it into it when they designed the WTC. They couldn't have imagined it happening. On the other hand, the building designed to withstand missile attacks, the Pentagon, was relatively undamaged.

Nitpicking about plane design.
Obviously you don't know much about planes. My friendly expert who has seen the wreckage of the Manchester does. Yes there was a steel strut in the aft (bit at the back) of the wing. Plane structures, the skeleton if you like, are made of steel and aluminium, depending on the placing and the loads, although the new Dreamliner is replacing much of this with carbon-fiber. You say steel struts are a little far fetched. You've got to be kidding me, right? Have you every seen how big these things are? And how heavy? The load capacity of aluminium is not sufficient to carry the forces. It needs something stronger to carry it. I won't refer you to plane designs of the 1930s, as you suggested, mostly because the best material available at the time was wood and it wouldn't be relevant in any case because the jet engine didn't go into mass production until the mid 1940s (there were prototypes in the late 30s.) They were flying turbo-props and were much lighter. They also burnt real fast. You asked why they wouldn't reinforce engines with metals which don't melt away. They do. Turbine engines use metal alloys with active film cooling systems. No-where in that report does it say that the engines had melted. It was the aft of the wing. Some of your points and questions are quite ridiculous, you have quite clearly not properly read what I said or pointed you to and you evidently cannot be bothered to do the research yourself, I suspect because if you muddied your arguments with any actual facts it would be very obvious that the basis of your argument is founded on junk science and ignorance.

My "ridiculous vacuum theory." Are you suggesting that oxygen burning in a building, ie being removed, does not cause a vacuum? Did you never do the Bell Jar experiment at school? If not, look it up. No-one is suggesting that an absolute vacuum was created, which is almost impossible to do when in the earth's atmosphere. A partial vacuum will do the job. If you don't like the standard accepted word, let's call it a pressure change. I will be using my pressure change cleaner later to suck up the dog hair on the carpet. Works better for you?

I'm sure there's other stuff in there that you've nitpicked over but you so clearly do not have anything approaching an open mind when it comes to any rational scientific explanation, I'm not sure I can be bothered to go through it. I've only done it now because it is so infuriating that people are spouting such completely inaccurate and unsupportable theories and are so utterly resistant to questioning them.

Let me back-track to some of the things you've said.
"All of my lies and manipulative distortions." Any good reason why I would lie and distort information? You think I'm part of the grand conspiracy to cover up the truth? Do you really imagine that I would be a regular poster on an anarchist website if my actual purpose in life was to protect the interests of the US government? You think I'm just fucking with you? That I've fabricated the opinion of an expert in aviation, specifically aviation failures and crashes, just to get my jollies? That I've put forward my "pathetic claims" just to upset you personally?

Straw poll, anyone who is familiar with me on this website? How do you feel about this statement? -
"By this point people begin to realize your compulsion to lie all the time."

Anyone feel that's anything more than a statement by someone who feels that having something they believe with all their heart challenged must be a lie. It's not what I think, you're lying! Not listening! You're only doing it to get at me! It's a bit like what conspiracy theories do to people really. Paranoid, persecuted and unable to think outside the narrow parameters of the conspiracy. It's symptomatic of basing your belief systems on something which has such a poor grasp of history and political reality.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 28 2013 18:38

So, TAE, how many more of your points do you want to admit defeat on after that?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 28 2013 19:59

I never really use this term, but damn TAE, you were pwned!

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:35

wqwqrwttty

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:35

35352532