FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

Do you realise you have - IMO - contradicted yourself?

Earlier you were saying how the fuselage was coming out that area. Now you show there is no exit hole big enough for the fuselage... though it is small enough for the engine core (which myself and others believe it may well be) to fit through?

You are debunking your own arguments, whilst strengthening my argument. Keep up the good work.

[Jack White]

Jack,

Do you realise you have - IMO - contradicted yourself?

Earlier you were saying how the fuselage was coming out that area. Now you show there is no exit hole big enough for the fuselage... though it is small enough for the engine core (which myself and others believe it may well be) to fit through?

You are debunking your own arguments, whilst strengthening my argument. Keep up the good work.

Do you realize how foolish you make yourself look?

Jack

[Jack White]

Kerosene, or diesel fuel either, do not melt steel...from an expert:

...........from Physics 911

Steel Ignores Jet Fuel

by Edward Mitchell

I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer. I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, and Blacksmith Forger. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning. The grounding failed, and the million gallons blew up.

Well, for a diesel fire that is. It didn’t “blow up”. It simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, and didn’t melt a thing.

The tank, 1/4″-thick steel, never melted.

Yet the 47 HUGE box-section core columns, the main structural supports of the WTC towers, are said to have melted?

Stop, I’ll wet my britches laughing.

I’ve melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired, sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I’ve welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.

Do you recall the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower? What caused that?

It was the JP-8 [jet fuel] contained in the aircraft’s tanks.

Did you see that huge fireball? What was that?

It was the kerosene (JP-8 is nothing more than refined kerosene, the same stuff you use in your camping stove).

It burned OUTSIDE the towers!

How could this fuel then have reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building?

And then?

It ran down 90 floors to melt the “un-insulated I-beams”? What? “Shook” the insulation off by jet impact? Are you kidding me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below it! What nonsense!

Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. It’s about 11’x11’x11’ — About the size on one of the many small offices on the floor that got hit. That’s all. The size of one little office the size of a 11-foot-cube.

Let’s look at this another way: The volume of each of the towers was roughly 50 MILLION CUBIC FEET.

The volume of the fuel was a relatively insignificant 1,300 cubic feet, about 0.003 percent!

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and less than 14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see “small fires”) and caused the beams to melt because the impact “knocked off the insulation”.

I have only one reply to that: What about WTC 7. Not hit. there goes THAT THEORY.

Steel at higher temperatures may bend, but it NEVER melts or turns to dust. Never. No, not ever.

Say, how about this for an argument: From now on, Controlled Demolition, Inc. never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences…oh no. We can simply pour 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition. Right?

[Evan Burton]

I note one other thing. The broken axle, absence of cut part of tire in one shot, and repositioning of entire object lead everyone, it seems, to agree the wheel was moved and rotated [if it is the same object in both]; then the angle the tire is to the brake assembly/axle is wrong in one - unless the tire had been separted completely, and was only lying upon the metal parts. Its angle is about the same in both and should be leaning the opposite way when rotated unless detached.

I tend to agree. I've only had a quick look at it, but it doesn't quite sit at the angle I would expect if rotated 180 degrees. I suppose it is quite possible that it's been bent / sagged when moved, but I need to look far for closely at it and get the mental picture right before I commit myself to anything.

[Dave Greer]

Kerosene, or diesel fuel either, do not melt steel...from an expert:

Steel Ignores Jet Fuel

by Edward Mitchell

I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

<snip>

This is a strawman argument that has been exposed a LONG time ago. The author is absolutely correct. Kerosene does NOT "melt" steel, i.e. it does not liquefy it. However, the temperatures created in a building fire started by kerosene are sufficient to dramatically reduce the tensile strength of steel, WITHOUT melting it.

[Craig Lamson]

I note one other thing. The broken axle, absence of cut part of tire in one shot, and repositioning of entire object lead everyone, it seems, to agree the wheel was moved and rotated [if it is the same object in both]; then the angle the tire is to the brake assembly/axle is wrong in one - unless the tire had been separted completely, and was only lying upon the metal parts. Its angle is about the same in both and should be leaning the opposite way when rotated unless detached.

I tend to agree. I've only had a quick look at it, but it doesn't quite sit at the angle I would expect if rotated 180 degrees. I suppose it is quite possible that it's been bent / sagged when moved, but I need to look far for closely at it and get the mental picture right before I commit myself to anything.

The tire appears loose from the rim. This images gives a better perspective.

[Len Colby]

Real time Computer Generated Image insert in action.

Jack

One would only expect the image on the “monitor” to exactly match that of the video if the former was getting its feed from the latter. The obvious explanation is that this was not the case and the images in the ‘monitor’ had another source.

Indeed Fairbanks was “a freelance cameraman who had been working 2 blocks away” (1) and “had just emerged from Trinity Church, where he was videotaping the archbishop of Wales” (2) thus he was walking around the area and is unlikely to have had such a monitor with him let alone be hooked up to it .

The lower image is too low resolution to even make out clearly what it is, another of these Rorschach tests that people will see what they want in. A truther at first thought the ‘monitor’ “looked like a white van” (3) someone who commented on the video came to the same conclusion (4), the person who posted the video concluded “It's a reflection.” (5)

So is the plane in the “white van”/“monitor” too small? I’d like to see some evidence of that. Why do I get the sneaking suspicion none will be presented?

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUDxZS-RSfw (0:47)

2) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

3) http://911logic.blogspot.com/2007/05/evan-...eory-under.html

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUDxZS-RSfw- Comments section, he (or she) actually said “white truck”

5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUDxZS-RSfw- Comments section

EDIT - Formatting error corrected

Edited July 27, 2008 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

Kerosene, or diesel fuel either, do not melt steel...from an expert:

Steel Ignores Jet Fuel

by Edward Mitchell

I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

<snip>

This is a strawman argument that has been exposed a LONG time ago. The author is absolutely correct. Kerosene does NOT "melt" steel, i.e. it does not liquefy it. However, the temperatures created in a building fire started by kerosene are sufficient to dramatically reduce the tensile strength of steel, WITHOUT melting it.

As Colby would say, please cite your references. Your statement is anti-scientific.

A wood fire will not melt steel, or even cast iron...which Ben Franklin used to

invent his famous wood burning stove. My mother used her cast iron skillet

to cook breakfast every morning and it never melted. You hope nobody will notice

a convenient untruth.

Tell us why JET ENGINES do not melt from the heat of the kerosene they burn.

Jack

[Jack White]

Real time Computer Generated Image insert in action.

Jack

One would only expect the image on the “monitor” to exactly match that of the video if the former was getting its feed from the latter. The obvious explanation is that this was not the case and the images in the ‘monitor’ had another source.

Indeed Fairbanks was “a freelance cameraman who had been working 2 blocks away” (1) and “had just emerged from Trinity Church, where he was videotaping the archbishop of Wales” (2) thus he was walking around the area and is unlikely to have had such a monitor with him let alone be hooked up to it .

The lower image is too low resolution to even make out clearly what it is, another of these Rorschach tests that people will see what they want in. A truther at first thought the ‘monitor’ “looked like a white van” (3) someone who commented on the video came to the same conclusion (4), the person who posted the video concluded “It's a reflection.” (5)

So is the plane in the “white van”/“monitor” too small? I’d like to see some evidence of that. Why do I get the sneaking suspicion none will be presented?

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUDxZS-RSfw (0:47)

2) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

3) http://911logic.blogspot.com/2007/05/evan-...eory-under.html

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUDxZS-RSfw- Comments section, he (or she) actually said “white truck”

5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUDxZS-RSfw- Comments section

EDIT - Formatting error corrected

Colby's "truck".

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Kerosene, or diesel fuel either, do not melt steel...from an expert:

Steel Ignores Jet Fuel

by Edward Mitchell

I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

<snip>

This is a strawman argument that has been exposed a LONG time ago. The author is absolutely correct. Kerosene does NOT "melt" steel, i.e. it does not liquefy it. However, the temperatures created in a building fire started by kerosene are sufficient to dramatically reduce the tensile strength of steel, WITHOUT melting it.

As Colby would say, please cite your references. Your statement is anti-scientific.

A wood fire will not melt steel, or even cast iron...which Ben Franklin used to

invent his famous wood burning stove. My mother used her cast iron skillet

to cook breakfast every morning and it never melted. You hope nobody will notice

a convenient untruth.

Tell us why JET ENGINES do not melt from the heat of the kerosene they burn.

Jack

Jack, read my post again. I'm AGREEING with the author of the article you posted that a kerosene fire does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel.

However, nowhere in the NIST report does it state that steel was melted. It does, however, state that the fires burned at temperatures up to 1000 celsius, at which point steel loses 90% of its tensile strength, WITHOUT melting.

Since you demand references, here's the relevant portion from the NIST Report FAQ published August 2006.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

OR

7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

That's why the article you posted employs a long-refuted strawman argument. The "official version", i.e. the NIST report, does NOT state that steel beams melted: quite the opposite, as pointed out above. I don't know when the author wrote that article, but if he reads the relevant sections of the NIST report, he'll realise that he actually AGREES with that part of the official version (i.e. steel beams were NOT melted).

[Jack White]

Kerosene, or diesel fuel either, do not melt steel...from an expert:

Steel Ignores Jet Fuel

by Edward Mitchell

I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

<snip>

This is a strawman argument that has been exposed a LONG time ago. The author is absolutely correct. Kerosene does NOT "melt" steel, i.e. it does not liquefy it. However, the temperatures created in a building fire started by kerosene are sufficient to dramatically reduce the tensile strength of steel, WITHOUT melting it.

As Colby would say, please cite your references. Your statement is anti-scientific.

A wood fire will not melt steel, or even cast iron...which Ben Franklin used to

invent his famous wood burning stove. My mother used her cast iron skillet

to cook breakfast every morning and it never melted. You hope nobody will notice

a convenient untruth.

Tell us why JET ENGINES do not melt from the heat of the kerosene they burn.

Jack

Jack, read my post again. I'm AGREEING with the author of the article you posted that a kerosene fire does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel.

However, nowhere in the NIST report does it state that steel was melted. It does, however, state that the fires burned at temperatures up to 1000 celsius, at which point steel loses 90% of its tensile strength, WITHOUT melting.

Since you demand references, here's the relevant portion from the NIST Report FAQ published August 2006.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

OR

7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

That's why the article you posted employs a long-refuted strawman argument. The "official version", i.e. the NIST report, does NOT state that steel beams melted: quite the opposite, as pointed out above. I don't know when the author wrote that article, but if he reads the relevant sections of the NIST report, he'll realise that he actually AGREES with that part of the official version (i.e. steel beams were NOT melted).

The NIST report is a work of fiction.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Whether the object is a van or a monitor or something else is almost irrelevant the fact that some people thought it was one is indicative of the poor image quality. Even if it were a monitor it almost certainly wouldn’t have gotten its feed from Fairbanks’s camera.

Thanks for posting the enhanced image which clearly shows the plane is the right size

Edited July 27, 2008 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

Hahahahahahahahaha...I'm still laughing!

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Kerosene, or diesel fuel either, do not melt steel...from an expert:

Steel Ignores Jet Fuel

by Edward Mitchell

I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

<snip>

This is a strawman argument that has been exposed a LONG time ago. The author is absolutely correct. Kerosene does NOT "melt" steel, i.e. it does not liquefy it. However, the temperatures created in a building fire started by kerosene are sufficient to dramatically reduce the tensile strength of steel, WITHOUT melting it.

As Colby would say, please cite your references. Your statement is anti-scientific.

A wood fire will not melt steel, or even cast iron...which Ben Franklin used to

invent his famous wood burning stove. My mother used her cast iron skillet

to cook breakfast every morning and it never melted. You hope nobody will notice

a convenient untruth.

Tell us why JET ENGINES do not melt from the heat of the kerosene they burn.

Jack

Jack, read my post again. I'm AGREEING with the author of the article you posted that a kerosene fire does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel.

However, nowhere in the NIST report does it state that steel was melted. It does, however, state that the fires burned at temperatures up to 1000 celsius, at which point steel loses 90% of its tensile strength, WITHOUT melting.

Since you demand references, here's the relevant portion from the NIST Report FAQ published August 2006.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

OR

7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

That's why the article you posted employs a long-refuted strawman argument. The "official version", i.e. the NIST report, does NOT state that steel beams melted: quite the opposite, as pointed out above. I don't know when the author wrote that article, but if he reads the relevant sections of the NIST report, he'll realise that he actually AGREES with that part of the official version (i.e. steel beams were NOT melted).

The NIST report is a work of fiction.

Jack

Jack, I'm confused. Please help me out.

You post an article by Edward Mitchell who claims that steel can not melt due to kerosene fires. I point out that this is in agreement with the NIST report that steel did NOT melt. You claim the NIST report is a work of fiction. All of it, or some of it? If some, which parts?

Please tell me in your own words, were any of the steel beams in either WTC1 or 2 heated sufficiently to MELT them, rather than weaken them?

[Len Colby]

A few true/false questions about lighting, direction and photography.

While every one is encouraged to answer I’d especially like to hear from members who regularly comment on images i.e. Jack, Craig, Evan, Dave, Tink and Peter. I will get to the relevance of these questions later.

I believe all the statements below to be self-evident if you disagree for any reason say why:

1) A lighting source will illuminate the side(s) of an object facing it.

2) Thus when we see an object either live or in a photographic image that is (was) being lit by a single light source we can easily determine the direction it was in relation to the object. I.E. if the left/north/east side of something is illuminated we know the light source was to its left/north/east.

3) The sun ‘rises’ in the east and stays in the eastern half of the sky till noon when it crosses to the western half of the sky till it ‘sets’ in the west.

4) Thus if we see an image in which the eastern side of and object is in direct sunlight we know it was taken in the morning and conversely if we see an image in which the western side is in direct sun it was taken in the afternoon.