SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (2122)8/23/2003 7:36:21 PM
From: LPS5  Respond to of 20039
 
You want me to do all your work for you.

It's my job to back up your conjecture?

Didn't you read this post - in particular, the first part of it?

Message 19236578

I wrote this and the facts there stand on their own...[T]he fires in the twin towers could not have been more that 2000 degrees in temp given the fuel available to burn (jet fuel and building)...

You have yet to provide a link to credible, supporting evidence for this assertion.

...yet it would take 4,000 degrees to melt the steel (steel is made in special furnaces designed to get that unusually high temperature) and cause the building to collapse at all...

You have yet to provide a link to credible, supporting evidence for this assertion.

...(much less collapse in such a way that it looked like an expert demolition job, straight down).

You have yet to provide a link to credible, supporting evidence for this assertion.

The top of the building should have folded over on the weaker side if the steel had really melted as claimed, yet it went straight down.

You have yet to provide a link to credible, supporting evidence for this assertion.

You spend all your time...

LOL. "[A]ll [my] time"?

...deflecting what I say and making demands for the elusive proof.

I'm not deflecting what you say, I'm giving you a chance to back it up with evidence. And yet, I'd say that calling "proof" elusive where you are concerned is generous; absent is a more accurate adjective.

The government buried the truth. To hide it.

Ah. So there's no truth - or truth cannot be found - as the government buried it. But, somehow, you know. And I should take your unsubstantiated claims as fact, accepting what you assert unquestioningly?

I see.

Your motives and intelligence are questionable.

Where my "motives" are concerned, are you now claiming that I'm part of a (or 'the') grand conspiracy? As for my intelligence, I have to be honest: your questioning it isn't terribly hurtful. Sorry.

There was no investigation into the reasons for the collapse of the towers...But the investigation into the actual metal structural support of the buildings was secreted away and buried without examination. Then they said later for the public that the steel melted causing the collapse.

That is, of course (and predictably), completely untrue.

The investigation was only 1/3 done in early May.

nist.gov

Nevermind that it's not possible.

Again: do you have any documentation backing up your assertion that the way the towers collapsed is "not possible"?

That can be easily verified by you with a little research of your own, but you are too lazy. You want me to do it.

I don't want you to do "research" for me. I want you to back up your statements with credible evidence. You may draw my intelligence into "question," but I note that the difference between providing evidence for ones' statements vs. doing someone's "research" for them appears to elude you in a rather pronounced manner.

Then you will sarcastically try and poke holes in that.

I don't think I've "tr[ied]" to poke holes in any of the evidence you've provided. On the contrary: you would need to provide some evidence - anything - in order for me to do so.

You are a waste of time.

I guess you'll have to put me on Ignore, then, huh?

Deliberately blocking examination of the steel in a billion+ dollar disaster is unbelievable. it is beyond comprehension that they would not want to find out every detail. They are hiding the steel (just as they did with the Oklahoma City Federal Building) so that the evidence of the cutting charges are not ever found.

Yes, it is beyond comprehension that every detail wouldn't be examined. And, it is the not the case that details aren't being examined.

wtc.nist.gov

I told you and everyone to buy this tape and watch it.

Sorry. Like I've told you before, buying conspiracy theory videos and watching TV in general isn't my thing. I'm a reader, and there too I entertain higher minimum standards than the average American.

The evidence presented is so strong it cannot be denied.

And yet, it eludes books and any credible reference source that you might provide via a link. My goodness.

But you won't.

That's correct.

The Oklahoma City bombing was not done by a single truck bomb in front of the building. Experts show that that was impossible, even as the government secreted the building away unexamined. And their were 4 bombs inside the building and it was military C-4. Not fertilizer.

Uh-huh. By the way, I thought we were talking about the attack and destruction of the World Trade Center by al Qaeda hijacked jets on September 11th, 2001?

And it goes on and on, the evidence.

Yes. The evidence which I can only see by buying a video tape. Curious.

I've also posted another video that shows beyond any doubt that the FBI gunned down the Branch Dividians as they tried to flee the fire.

What does that have to do with 9/11, except - even more curiously - allowing you to hawk another silly videotape?

There was testimony by the coroner that examined the dead charred bodies that said they were shot. The fbi story is they shot each other but that's not true. The FBI was caught red handed by a new technology that saw from the air the gunfire in the entire compound as the fire progressed and where the gunfire came from. ALL the gunfire in the compound came from FBI positions outside the buildings and went into the buildings. There was some talk at the time about a private plane circling the compound. Nobody knew anything about it. The plane was hired privately and was watching the compound with new very sensitive technology that could see everything as it happened. The FBI is exposed murdering those people.

What does all that have to do with al Qaeda attacks on September 11th, 2001?

But you don't want to know.

Of course I do. You're not backing up your statements with anything but exhortations that I should buy a few videotapes and insistence that I should provide the documentation backing the allegations you're making.

You don't want your fragile little make believe world to be upset.

I'd venture that a world wherein all truth is held by videotapes espousing conspiratorial tales is decidedly fragile. You, of course, are free to disagree.

I've met many people like you.

How would you know? You don't know a thing about me, despite your repeated assertions to that effect.

You are the antithesis of this saying "The prices [sic] of freedom is eternal vigilance".

And you personify the reason for quotes of this sort:

Message 19236666

You are a gullible lazy American.

So...to not be a "gullible lazy American"...I should buy the videotapes you're touting and allow them to be my sole source(s) of backing evidence vis a vis your conspiracy theories?

You and your ilk. But someone else might want to see the videos.

My 'ilk' - the few of us that there are - would take a well-written book or, perhaps, a number of mutually corroborating websites providing documentation for the types of claims you're making.

And yet, you still haven't shown a thing.

LPS5



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (2122)8/26/2003 3:16:28 AM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20039
 
the fires in the twin towers could not have been more that 2000 degrees in temp given the fuel available to burn (jet fuel and building) yet it would take 4,000 degrees to melt the steel (steel is made in special furnaces designed to get that unusually high temperature) and cause the building to collapse at all (much less collapse in such a way that it looked like an expert demolition job, straight down).
Wrong.

Adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene = 1727C
That's 3141 degrees F.
216.239.51.104
You really, REALLY ought to go through that above link in detail. It does a good job of blowing your entire theory that the commercial jet crash could not have destroyed the WTC towers.

But, continuing, your guess(?) at the temp of the flame is too low- -by 35%.

Also, this establishes that jet fuel is a type of kerosene.
chevron.com
ASTM D 1655 The Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels includes specifications for
three commercial jet fuels: two kerosene-type fuels (Jet A and Jet A-1) and a wide-cut fuel (Jet B).1
Jet A is used for almost all domestic commercial aviation flights in the United States.


The melting temperature of high strength construction steel is 1540 degrees centigrade- -maximum.
io.tudelft.nl

So clearly the temperature of the flame was sufficient to melt it.

In fact, BECAUSE OF THAT FACT, the beams in buildings have a coat of insulation applied to them- -BECAUSE THEY CAN ENCOUNTER FLAMES HOT ENOUGH TO MELT THE STEEL.

What happened? Two things: the impact of the plane jarred loose and knocked off part of the insulation. And also the insulation will only protect the steel for a while. That while is not an hour of exposure to flame.

Another point: it is not necessary to actually melt a material under compression to cause it to collapse. As its temp goes up, it weakens; at some point it collapses. Is a stick of butter that's been out at room temp for a few hours as strong as one right out of the freezer?

Here:

types of steel
% OF STRENGTH AT ROOM TEMPERATURE

Temperature Mild Cold drawn High strength
(degree C) Steel prestressing alloy bars
20 100 100 100
100 102 97 98
200 115 94 102
300 112 80 97
400 82 55 82
500 55 34 60
600 30 16 38
700 20 8 20

ou.edu
So steel has lost 80% of its room temp strength by 700 c which is 1400 F which is less than the combustion temp of Kerosene.

So much for that theory.

And it goes on and on, the evidence.

I think you'd better answer this. I intend to post it to some of your fellow conspiracists and to some who think the lot of you are nuts who will desperately latch onto ANYTHING to attack Bush and promote your crazy, ill founded, poorly researched theories. Or make something up out of whole cloth. I'm also going to PM it to some people so they can have it available if you guys try to push this theory again.

And I'm really not impressed with the diligence and honesty of you people. It took me less than 10 minutes of googling to find that.

Your motives and intelligence are questionable.