Posted on 11/01/2011 12:37:58 PM PDT by ConservativeStatement
Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims. But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
There’s nothing you could show them that would make the whackos shut up.
It wont shut up the idiots.
Fire doesn’t melt steel, right?
Plus, there is still that whole “missing plane” at the Pentagon.
/s
Yea but remember all those planes have those tanks to produce chemtrails to keep the sheeple stupid and who knows how hot those chemicals burn.
I walked out of a party about a month ago when a guy started up about how 9/11 was an inside job.
It was that or knock his teeth out, and I can’t afford that right now.
The kooks really are out there.
My mechanical engineering curriculum didn't cover the non-fire technology for melting steel. Must be a shortcoming of Texas A&M College of Engineering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_neckties
"Sherman's neckties were a phenomenon of the American Civil War. Named after Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army, Sherman's neckties were railway rails 'destroyed by heating them until they were malleable' and twisting them into loops resembling neckties, often around trees".
The troofers will just say the video is fake.
It floors me that these people can claim that no planes hit the WTC. I saw it with my very own eyes. So was it holograms? Mass hypnosis?
I also saw the tail of the plane sticking out of the Pentagon building. Did I dream that?
Those are the questions they can’t answer. Just believe what they say and pay no attention to the idiot behind the curtain.
It was produced in a Hollywood studio, just like the Moon landings. /s
Oh yeah, that’s the ticket, that’s the ticket.
Thank you for enlightening me.
My favorite conspiracy “proof” was the wire mesh cage ( about a cubic foot in size) with the fire lit inside PROVING that the metal did not melt...
Obviously you are a part of the conspiracy spreading disinformation.
The better question sounds even worse: do they really believe the CIA has no better method for destroying files than destroying four planes to destroy four buildings (two of which were in a different region) in hopes that one of them might fall onto the target (fifth) building and maybe manage to destroy the files.
Yet another indication you should stop watching TV: when you conclude Occam’s Razor (to wit “the simplest answer is right”) never applies.
“Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims”
This is one aspect of conspiracy craziness I’ll never understand. The conspirators are genius enough to pull it off, but stupid enough to pass off the implausible as possible. Why bother burning down Building 7 at all? What do you gain that’s worth violating (conspiracy nuts’ version of) science? Aren’t the Twin Towers enough?
Same thing with the nuts’ central claim about “controlled demolition.” If you’re gonna blow up the Twin Towers, why bother with airplanes? Is the image too dear to worry about the nearly infinite complexity they add to a simple bomb plot? And if so, why not just fly the planes into the building without demoliting them? Or must the image be planes flying into buildings which then collapse, and nothing else? Why, especially as it would inevitably raise questions among “scientists” who on’t think fire can weaken metal?
Nevermind all that/ Let’s say it makes perfect sense. Why, oh why, on top of all that, I ask again, must they demolish building 7? You can almost convince me demolition without planes and planes without demolition aren’t enough. Okay, you can’t, but you can convince me to pretend so. However, I’ll never accept that demolishing some rinky-dink little side building that no one paid attention to at the time and no one remembers nowadays was necessary. No way.
Are you an xkcd reader? From about two weeks ago:
Actually what people don’t really get is that the steel never had to melt. It only had to reach the softening point which is a lot lower temperature than the melting point. The truth is that jet fuel will not get you to the melting point without some work. However it won’t have any trouble getting to the softening point. Once you hit that the structural members are more like silly putty than I beams.
I once had this discussion with a wingnut who believed it was an inside job. The fact that I have a PhD in steelmaking didn’t seem to phase him at all.
Silly man. It was the Jooooos! /s
“Fire doesn’t melt steel, right?”
No. And if that makes you wonder what people do at steel mills all day, well, they melt it with the power of love.
Ping a ling
The fact that you have a PhD in steelmaking proves the point!! What’s the frequency, Kenneth??
/wingnut
My favorite “proof” that “fire doesn’t melt steel” uttered by a former neighbor, an English teacher.
“Look, I’ve been cooking on this stainless still grill forever and it has melted yet and neither has the lid. I’ve got a Master’s degree you know.” She said with a sneer.
Rosie the Riviter worked with steel all the time. She should know.
“I loved the History Channel program that reviewed and debunked the conspiracy theories.”
Apparently, they’ve matured since airing “The Men Who Killed Kennedy.”
I knew that. I was adding to the sarcasm by pointing out that fire is the primary means by which we have always melted steel. Weather by accident or intention. The engineering curriculum being my evidence.
I guess I failed.
iBeams - something else Apple will trademark. lol
According to them Bush was the most incompetent President ever. And yet he supposedly planned and orchestrated the most complicated and largest controlled demolition in history.
...just like the Mars landing too, which is why we had to frame OJ.
“Look, I’ve been cooking on this stainless still grill forever and it has melted yet and neither has the lid”
Was her grill propping up a skyscraper?
Also why the approximate hour wait after the planes impact the towers before blowing up the buildings? Did the evil conspirators have some compassion to allow a number to escape with their lives first before saying ok they’ve had enough time bring the towers down? Wouldn’t evil conspirators want as high a body count as possible to stoke outrage?
They vacated Building 7.
They vacated it for a reason, It might go down , It did. End of story.
My mechanical engineering curriculum didn’t cover the non-fire technology for melting steel.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The EE’s cover it.
IIRC, the WTC towers employed an innovative construction technique. I do not recall the details, but it relied on steel cables in tension, something like a suspension bridge. Once the heat caused the cables to go into yeild (get soft), the whole thing collapsed like a house of cards. It had a considerable amount of redundancy, but more support was lost on the side of building towards the entrance wound, unbalancing the contraption and reducing the margin.
lol
I always wanted to asked Rosie if she thought steel gets dug out of the ground in that shape or if they grow them that way.
Your reference, of course, is to that famous physicist Rosie O'Donnell. Here, for the amusement of those who didn't appreciate your subtle joke, are the brilliant words of Rosie herself talking about the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Recently, Rosie O’Donnell, a co-host of ABC talk show The View, made comments on the show that renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
While saying she didn’t know what to believe about the U.S. government’s involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”
She continued: “To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason.”
I don’t know the details on the WTC, but you’re talking about post tension cable construction. This is used to make concrete slabs capable of taking tension stress. Hitting the softening point in a cable in a case like that would surely make the slabs fail. Also the framework would have been steel girders supporting those slabs, and those beams would also have buckled after hitting the softening point.
I don’t remember the details completely (not a Civil Engineer anyway), but there is a pretty small maximum height you can attain when you try to build a building with just masonry and not steel. Steel had it’s strength based on a couple of things- work hardening and precipitation hardening. Once you get to the softening point of the steel, both of these factors crash, and you end up with really soft metal.
you missed response 23-
the jooos had to make sure they were all out before blowing the tower-sarc
It is amazing the towers stood- for as long as they did-
watching the second plane go through the tower- I would
have thought most -beams and supports were compromised.
to cause an immediate collapse.
sometimes a logical presentation is merely lost on me.
In some cases if the Union troops had to quickly move on they would start a bonfire with the railroad ties and other wood, put the railroad rails on top of it, leave and let gravity bend the rails under their own weight. They could be used again but not without some work.
My favorite “proof” that “fire doesn’t melt steel” uttered by a former neighbor, an English teacher.
“Look, I’ve been cooking on this stainless still grill forever and it has melted yet and neither has the lid. I’ve got a Master’s degree you know.” She said with a sneer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
lol
My neighbor (also with a Masters in English) mixed Ajax with ammonia to clean her bathroom.
Fortunately, she managed to drive herself to the ER.
Chemistry lesson learned the hard way.
Rosie the Riviter -vs- Rosie the Ribeater.
It depends on how hot the fire is. 1100 degree F will sure weaken steel.
I know. I was just pointing out the lunacy of it all...
A word of warning to anyone who hasn't seen it and wants to find it and watch it.
EMPTY YOUR BLADDER BEFORE WATCHING!
You will not hold it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
