First this link is a scientific calculation of kerosene combustion and theoretical temperatures it could reach. I know from civil aviation records that aircraft kerosene has different grades with flashpoints from 24-38 c now this calculation uses 42c which is normal kerosene. Anyway from the calculations you can conclude the temperatures reached could never have warped the steel. Then 1975 fire in the WTC never caused these problems, nothing melted and the sprinkler system worked even FEMA says it would have failed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

I'm not an engineer nor am I particularly good with math so most of the stuff on this webpage goes over my head, but the one thing I do note is that when they work out how much engergy they have available and how much the temp needs to increase by they ommit two things. The first is that it assumes the structure remains uncompromised (i.e. that all the bits are doing what they are designed to do and no supporting items have been severed) and secondly that the entire weight of concrete, steel etc is being heated to he same degree. Naturally it won't be and so there will be areas cooler than others and areas that are hotter than others. Some areas wouldn't have been affected at all, but these calculations require them all to be heated to the same point - it ain't going to happen. It is therefore quite possible I think that a reduced number of load bearing items supporting a much higher weight is subject to a range of heat intensities, some very high, some not so high - it is not all being heated to the same level. Thus it would seem possible that amongst the reduced number of remaining supports enough of them do receive sufficeintly high temps to cause them to fail - the more that fail the more likely the rest will be unable to take up the slack.

Facts? Really? All I see is data.
Kerosine, 707 flying speed, fuel loads, flame color, Steel melting points.....
Theory, theory, theory.........Why do you put such blind faith into engineering data and the logic that the building was 'supposed' too withstand the impact of a jet airplane. Let me tell you, engineers get it wrong all the time. I have spent a good part of my working life rectifying engineer's cock-ups. (i spent 3 hours of today doing just that). There is a yawning gap between what's designed and the finished product. And even if the engineers get it right, who's to say it was constructed to design anyway? Who's to say the construction company didn't cut corners during the construction? Who's to say the suppliers didn't supply sub-grade materials. Who's to say the certifying engineer did his job properly?

The only REAL way to see if this building could withstand the impact of a 707, is to build one exactly the same then smack into it with one and see if it falls down or not.

[quote=spacefrog]OK GN contradicting yourself by telling me that I need to tell you what degrees to ascertain authority then telling me that just degrees in sociology and philosophy don`t give such authority. So which is it? And then practical life experience has more authority?plus the fact if you had read properly you would have noticed I stated politics and philosophy. Now how can logic not be a valid degree when our whole system of science in underpinned by it.[quote]

Politics and philiosophy do not make you a specialist in fields like engineering and climatology. No contradiction there. I do not try to debate the science surrounding 9/11 because although I have a science degree, my field of knowledge does not extend to the mechanisms surrounding the collapse of a building when a plane hits it. I only ask that you debate these issues with an open mind and accept the possibility that you too could be completely and utterly wrong. Also acknowledge that people who accept the official explanations are not just brainwashed sheep but have as much right to their belifs as do you. You come across something like a religious zealot whose beliefs cannot be questioned. As I've said before put forward your views as your opinion and not as absolute truth

[quote=spacefrog] And GN we can debate calmly about climate change(in the other thread), the artificial oil crisis which we are experiencing now, the comming food crisis that monsanto will help foment with it`s GMO crops. Please read about Kissingers 1974 National security council meorandum 200 on population control. He lays out oil crisis, food crisis, climate change as tools for curbing global population.[quote]

We can't debate this because you do not debate the science, you are more interested in debating it from a political conspiracy viewpoint. I am only interested in the science.

um really how can you debate blue prints that clearly show FEMA`s diagrams are ultra simplistic and amateur at best. But I am sure you will all find some way to ridicule and rubbish it as it doesn`t fit with what you want to believe.

So all you see is data about how kerosene combusts, and it is only data? Um underpinned by scientific principles but apparently in this case they don`t count. These are not my opinions but unfortunately these principles and laws that govern science are held as truth. It is a calculation about how kerosene behaves and has nothing to do with the building and how damaged it was as Rag-doll seems to confusingly add. Selectively using the calculation and not mentioning the other link that went with at which was a critique of chapter 2 of the FEMA report which was written by Ronald Hamburger who is known to have retracted his original statement that he thought it was controlled demolition.

So having examined the schematics and seen that the official story completely disregards the actual structure in it`s scientific analysis which you all hold as truth, where next?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.html#flaws

So the FEMA report as we see does NOT regard the official schematics as valid and comes up with some over simplified version. As GN says only interested in science, well how is that science. I am interested in the science but not selective science. Colour of the flames is based on scientific principle, steel properties and heat conduction are also, heat and temperature are different although they are related and also scientific principles, heat conduction of steel and heat conduction of concrete, Newton`s laws, etc etc. So why does FEMA brush over them or do they not need to adhere to these principles?

And all everyone has labeled me is just as guilty of the same , over zealous defending and not debating science.

Let`s look at Dr. Eager again and how he uses science

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/comments/eagar.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar2.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html

What would Sir Isaac have to say about that?Sorry we only apply Newtons laws when we feel like it?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html

And before we get all personal again which I really don`t care about anyway, like GN says stick to debating the science of how the towers collapsed. Nothing about political implications or anything else. Stick to how they fell apart and convince me that scientifically based on the information omitted in the official theory why I should believe FEMA , NIST, 9/11 commission and why it is any more credible than my so called crackpot religious zealot conspiracy theory.

OK Here is a few retorts to Dr. Eager's report from your 9/11 cronies.


There is no evidence that fires ever covered more than a half of any floor in the South Tower

That is confident language to describe a "theory" not supported by any evidence.

There is no evidence the fires were anywhere near that hot.

Where is the evidence? At 1300° F, the steel would have been glowing red hot and would have been visible even in broad daylight.


But there is no evidence that the structural steel skeleton was any less robust than any other building.

Funny that there is no evidence of the bowing outward of the outer box columns in any of the videos or photographs

There is no evidence the jet collision with Tower 2 significantly damaged its core structures

Spotted the common theme there? No evidence, yet you/they have NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. You sit back and pick holes in the reports but what do you offer to fill the holes....................a vacuum!

And in fact the towers WERE designed to survive collisions by 707s carrying over twice the fuel that the similar-sized 767s were

WERE designed.??? That's beautiful. Let's all blindly except this as gospel because it suits our argument.


Those angle clips! Well, I guess we'll have to take Eagar's word that the designers stupidly underengineered them,

Yep... I could definitely believe that one.

I'm not scientist, nor am I a very intelligent or highly educated. What I am blessed with is a good dose of common sense and rationale. I'm not going to debate you anymore on this.( that doesn't mean you've won by the way, it just means I don't have the spare time that you do) I would really like to hear your full account of what you think happened instead of picking holes in the current version and offering NOTHING in return.

I did offer something in return, I offered the schematics for the building.Start with the core of the building as this is the key point that gets brushed under the carpet. How can you accept an MIT professor`s zipper theory when the schematics prove his theory is based on selectively choosing which part to show.

I really don`t think you can refute the schematics.

And Les Robertson says they WERE designed to withstand a 707 so you are saying we blindly accept the designers statement as gospel. So then you believe that we can`t take the designer seriously?

I don`t have to offer any alternate theory because we are talking about the official version being based on half truths and unscientific analyses. I will be branded conspiracist again if I try to offer alternate theories

As I said stick to the facts and science of how the towers came down.

So we will go with known scientific principles and facts starting with the core of the building and the schematics then account for the time of the fires and the time that the buildings came down. Concrete doesn`t just vaporise into dust and steel doesn`t just fail and fall into 500.000 pieces. The building should have been built to regulations which will of course include redundancy, even the floors would have had redundancy, the architects and designers would of course have planned redundancy into the structure.

I like the fact that when I asked about the pentagon, I was quickly set straight with the "N" eyewitnesses. Suddenly the "N" eyewitnesses in the twin towers count for nothing as they would help pull the carpet from under the official theory very quickly. So stop using Eagar et al. scientific principle "if it doesn`t fit toss it out and brush over it"

You all support the official theory, the one we are all told to believe as truth conveniently packaged as credible in easy bite sized chunks. So instead of me giving my account, why don`t you tell me why you defend a theory that is so full of holes and overlooks many important scientific principles.

And the Cardington experiments are generally held to provide evidence of how steel behaves in office building fires , so there is the vacuum you so claim I am providing. And ask yourself about your kerosene heater in winter, how do most heaters hold up, shouldn`t they by right warp, deform and suddenly fall into pieces?
And where have you seen concrete burning? or even being heated to the point it vaporises into dust?

Virtually every link you've provided spacefrog is from the same site created by Jim Hoffman (who is not a structural engineer). Here are the descriptions for the people involved with the website from the site itself;

Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman is a research scientist and software engineer. His scientific visualizations have been widely published in journals including Science News, Scientific American, Science Digest, and Nature; and he co-authored papers in Science and Macromolecules. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website. That Hoffman has been targeted by a campaign of harassment and defamation is evidence of the importance of his work.

That last sentence really amuses me. The fact that his site and the supposed 'science' he uses has been bought into question must mean that he's really onto something!!

Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

Earlier education in the "hard" sciences?? Yet no actual qualifications in the 'hard' sciences it would seem or they would have mentioned it. So suddenly a social worker is an expert on planes crashing into buildings....

Victoria Ashley has been researching the attack since 2003, and has contributed unique insights into the modes and methods of misinformation used to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement. Ashley highlighted the importance of Steven Jones' work in the essay A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction, and helped to organize the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice group.

So it would seem that Victoria has no qualifications whatsoever but does have an aptitude for PR. I have no doubt at all that her insights could easily be considered 'unique'.

Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.

And finally we have graphic designer who can present the incredible talents of this team to bring us all their incredible insights through the internet.

So spacefrog these are the guys that you've have based most of your 'facts' on....
Well I guess in this day and age people still believe in things like gods and ghosts so it doesn't really surprise me you can be taken in by the rubbish from that website.

Did you see on one of the website Frog linked us to where they have run a model of what would happen if a 747 hit the buildings? Some model they couldn't even get the specs of the building right! kind of makes you wonder at the rest of the parameters!

A bunch of know nothing clowns.

Eye witnesses - at the pentagon eyewitnesses claimed to have seen a passenger plane, which is something instantly recognisable to pretty much everyone in the world. Not a lot of scope for error there. Eye witnesses at the WTC were seeing something pretty well unprecedented. All sorts of shit was going on and people naturally were struggling to interpret what they were seeing. Frog do some research on memory and the problems with how people interpret and process visual information and how that information is subsequently reinterpreted by the brain after the fact.

A bunch of mighty pissed off Arabs that despised America and all that it stands for, crashed a few planes into some buildings to try and kill as many people as possible, create general havoc, take out the two symbols that most represent the evil, greedy capitalist infidel and collect your their 99 virgins at the gates of paradise, thank you very much.

Why is that so hard to swallow Frog? Fark the science!

So you will have me believe that Chief Oreo Palmer, a veteran fireman came across an office fire which in your own words is unprecedented and he was convinced he could put it out. So he was struggling to interpret what he did for a living and believing his eyes. I will also remind you that over 100C people will suffer. So how did he get up there , survive and feel from is years of experience that he could put out the fire. Why did the survivors from that floor not have their skin hanging from them unless they happened to be directly in the fire. I am pretty sure people remember being hot as it a sensation you don`t need your eyes, nose and ears to sense. Having survived a house fire myself which my 5 year old god child started with matches, I can attest to feeling heat and smoke and only having suffered from CO poisoning but still remember very clearly that I tried to save them but couldn`t due to excessive smoke. Fortunately the brave fire brigade brought them out alive. Fire is not something you easily forget.
Eye witnesses at the pentagon that saw a 707 were most likely govt officials, eye witnesses that worked at surrounding businesses saw nothing like a 707 but they aren`t mentioned.Again Selective Eagar science, oh but wait the criticism of the people I mention are not structural engineers but wait neither it Eagar.

The 747 model response is laughable, can`t get the the dimensions right, smacks of hypocrisy as the theory you support can`t do that either. However the model supplied is based on a lesser strength building that wouldn`t succumb so Rag-Doll would have you believe that a stronger building would and this is his best attempt at ridiculing the schematics. Well makes you wonder at the real dimensions, and the simplistic dimensions used by the theory he defends vociferously. This shows how you people are duped based on language.

Pavlov would be proud, I say 9/11 inside job, you give the pavlovian response conspiracy. I say Al qaeda and your pavlovian response is Islamic terrorist. etc etc ad infinitum ad infinitum.

Open minded people start with a clean slate without prejudice and examine the facts to determine their stance or opinion.

Closed minded people can`t escape their entrenched deluded minds and start with an opinion they so fiercely defend against any opinion valid or invalid.
So at best the official theory is incomplete and therefor inconclusive and at worst fantasy.

I am sorry to have to say this but as predicted you can`t or don`t want to read as I said on several occasions let`s debate the facts and not throw in political ramifications. Again the steel core that supported the building is brushed over and is totally relevant as are the schematics of the floors that are over simplified.

I really wonder if I am the only person that believes that the official theory is fanciful and why others don`t show their true colours, but I suppose that others are too frightened to be ostracised by their forum buddies. I can understand that.

As you totally try to disprove me with circular arguments and straw man arguments , you simultaneously undermine yourselves so it will never prove anything eventhough you think it is convincing.

So people Blue prints, schematics, steel core!!!!!!

All you prove here is how well programmed you are with your pavlovian response.

As said before schematics blue prints steel core ------> prove how the towers just disintigrated before we get on to political ramifications

Yes, I'm a pre-programmed fool with the wool well and truely pulled over my eyes. Foolish of me to assume engineers/ philosipher and multi media graphic designers could get it wrong.

Lead me out of the the darkness oh great wise one. Open my eyes and put me on the path of truth.

You are entertaining Froggy. I'll give you that.

I used to have an open mind, but stuff kept falling out. That made the rest of what was in there irrelevant. I shut it to keep come sense of relevance.

Sorry if it has been mentioned.(it's a big topic). Has anything been said about the other plane that went down in Pennsylvania.

Doubt it, there was too much "independent" evidence, for example, from the occupants of the plane for there to be any mileage in a conspiracy theory in that direction.

these people have got to concentrate their efforts in areas where ther can be some seeds of doubt sown, then irrigate these with plenty of mis (or dis)information.

actually, there is plenty there that people question. Particularily, why the wreckage was spread over a huge area (as if it was blown up) instead of the wreckage you would expect to find at a crash. The pics of the supposed crash site show very little actual wreckage.

So did we come to a conclusion then?

9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.

Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.

That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.


.... what you reckon spacefrog?