9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty funny actually steel melts period. To say that a fire could never melt steel is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ] Well yeah, but it does need to be a certain degrees to melt. Not an easy temperature to achieve via a fire alone. You know this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Steel doesn't need to melt to be weakened to a point where it isn't capable of bearing loads like a skyscraper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right, all that has to happen is for the steel to become heated enough to warp or bend sufficiently to compromise its rigidity under the great strain and the rest will follow.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly right, all that has to happen is for the steel to become heated enough to warp or bend sufficiently to compromise its rigidity under the great strain and the rest will follow.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.matweb.com/search/Specifi...bassnum=M1330B

It takes an obscene amount of heat to start to compromise the structural integrity of steel, especially steel used in buildings.

You can also look at wikipedia's page on structural steel in regards to the critical temperature:

Critical, and melting temperatures of structural steel

Most people do not realize[citation needed] that most of the properties of steel vary widely, based on what alloying elements are in it, and, for steel with carbon as it's only alloying element, how much carbon is present.

The critical temperature for steel starts at 900°C for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724°C for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1 % carbon (by weight) is approached, the critical temperature climbs back up, to 1130°C.

This is not to be confused with the critical temperature for a fluid. The term "critical temperature", when used in regard to steel, means the temperature that all of the carbon in a steel is transformed into an austenitic crystal structure. This is very important for heat-treating steels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel

Secondly, regardless of whether or not melted steel caused the building to fall, they found molten steel in the basement.

[LongRedHair]

OK I'll play this game for a little while.

statement :=

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to weaken the steel to a point of collapse since structural steel has to be able to handle 500-600% its load.

Fact :-

Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below and virtually ensuring major traffic problems for weeks to come.

full story

Not sure what the difference in burning temp. of jet fuel vs. gasoline but I'm sure it's near enough.


statement :=

Not to mention that these buildings were designed to take the impact of a jumbo jet crashing into it.

Fact :-

The twin towers were designed to take the impact of a of a Boeing 707

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you listen to the tape?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe the taped phone conversations of passengers prior to crash were doctored.

[ThaSaltCracka]

LRH, even the Popular Mechanics article mentions that Jet Fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt or warp steel. Gasoline apparently burns hotter however. I don't see how the incident in SF disproves anything since we are talking about a different gas. The Popular Mechanics piece does contend that other items in the WTC added to the fire, such as rugs,carpet, presumably paper and files, and those items could have caused the fire to burn considerably higher.

[Moseley]

Look. There is no point debating the issue. If 9/11 was a work of the U.S. Gov't, those of us speaking out against the Govt will end up in one of those railroad cars modified with ankle chains, on the way to one of those closed military bases, modified as prisons.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Moseley, your post, while silly, has the great moral in it. Whats done is done and their isn't [censored] we can do about it. I am starting to join into the camp that the government let this happen via complicity or incompetence, and thats horrible as it is.

I want to add, I think its silly that "conspiracy theorists" arguments are wack and those opposing it are correct, for no apparent reason other than their not conspiracy theorist. I read the Popular Mechanics report. I don't consider any of it definitive. Any argument made against the conspiracy theorist can be used against the PM report. Both sides have their "experts", both sides have their anecdotal evidence. When it all comes down to it, Bush and his Cronies know exactly what happened and quite frankly I don't trust them enough to tell us the truth.

[Moseley]

Ok. So explain Cheney sitting in the White House, Rumsfeld sitting in the Pentagon. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Bush's wife being in the Capital Bldg. at the time the plane hit the Pentagon.

I guess they "knew" they were safe? I guess they "knew" that 4th plane was not going to hit its target?

[MuresanForMVP]

Niels- altogether you've probably posted links to a total of about 3 million minutes of video on google video or youtube in this thread alone. Do you ever get the feeling that maybe people dont want to have to sit through a 40 minute video or audio recording just to see what single point you're making? Can you just summarize it?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. So explain Cheney sitting in the White House, Rumsfeld sitting in the Pentagon. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Bush's wife being in the Capital Bldg. at the time the plane hit the Pentagon.

I guess they "knew" they were safe? I guess they "knew" that 4th plane was not going to hit its target?

[/ QUOTE ]What do you expect me to answer here?