# 9/11 Conspiracy Theories! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2006, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948 "2006-03-26T10:02:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/101 "2006-04-01T04:08:48Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > cite … Is [Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html) acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![hop\_along](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f08c70/32.png) [@hop\_along](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hop_along)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/102 "2006-04-01T13:10:19Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > That’s why conspiracy theories are only theories. Read Eric Hufschmids book ‘Painful Questions’ which clearly shows a photograph of the South Tower not collapsing in a pancake fashion but the top portion overhanging the remainder of the tower. That being so why did the remainder of the building collapse? ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/103 "2006-04-01T13:33:28Z")
…and you should read the transcripts made by the frantic victims and 911 operators in the [NY Daily News,](http://www.nydailynews.com) [the Post,](http://www.nypost.com), and the [Times,](http://www.nytimes.com), all of which have the operators reacting to the fact that the people who are about to die unspeakable deaths are telling them about the planes that just hit the buildings. Guess they’re all in on it too, including the victims. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/104 "2006-04-01T13:57:41Z")
> [@hop along](#): > > Read Eric Hufschmids book ‘Painful Questions’ which clearly shows a photograph of the South Tower not collapsing in a pancake fashion but the top portion overhanging the remainder of the tower. That being so why did the remainder of the building collapse? The towers were designed like a house of cards–destabilize the roof and down it goes. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/105 "2006-04-01T18:49:42Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Out of curiosity, what _do_ the conspiracy theories who insist that it wasn’t a 757 that hit the Pentagon say about what happened to the 757 and the passengers on it? Surely they have some inventive and ridiculous answer to this conundrum, but I’ve never heard it. Oh, you know, the usual kind of crap: Taken to Area 51 and given to aliens, stashed on some desert island with promises to be returned to America and their families someday, killed and buried some place where no one will ever find them, or the people never really existed and their “families” are all gov’t agents in on the whole thing. Today, however, I came up with a conspiracy theory that I think most people can believe: All the conspiracy theories being promoted are totally bogus, **but** their spread is being encouraged by the Administration because it distracts people from the glaring intellegence failures which allowed 9/11 to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/106 "2006-04-01T19:04:06Z")
> [@hop along](#): > > Read Eric Hufschmids book ‘Painful Questions’ which clearly shows a photograph of the South Tower not collapsing in a pancake fashion but the top portion overhanging the remainder of the tower. That being so why did the remainder of the building collapse? How were you expecting the building to collapse? Please show your math. ---
**Author:** ![Flash\_Dancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@Flash\_Dancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash_Dancer)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/107 "2006-04-01T19:48:01Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Out of curiosity, what _do_ the conspiracy theories who insist that it wasn’t a 757 that hit the Pentagon say about what happened to the 757 and the passengers on it? Surely they have some inventive and ridiculous answer to this conundrum, but I’ve never heard it. I heard they were over in Afghanistan working on the oil pipeline 😃 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/108 "2006-04-01T21:03:14Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Oh, you know, the usual kind of crap: Taken to Area 51 and given to aliens, stashed on some desert island with promises to be returned to America and their families someday, killed and buried some place where no one will ever find them, or the people never really existed and their “families” are all gov’t agents in on the whole thing. > [@Flash Dancer](#): > > I heard they were over in Afghanistan working on the oil pipeline 😃 Don’t be ridiculous! \*\*Tuckerfan \*\* is on the mark! All the passengers are interned in some desert islands and like the [Truman Show](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/), they are unwilling actors in a TV show called _Lost_. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/109 "2006-04-02T00:42:02Z")
I still say they are at area 57… -XT ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/110 "2006-04-02T01:54:27Z")
Useless Git makes a good point; this particular question was answered in 1962, in the Operation Northwoods memo. So the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says to the Defense Secretary “Hey! You know what might spice up this Cuba shit? A plane full of students, shot down over the Bay of Pigs.” Reading from the report: _An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and the passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases._ People plan shit like this all the time. Remember the Maine! ---
**Author:** ![Flash\_Dancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@Flash\_Dancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash_Dancer)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/111 "2006-04-02T04:33:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Don’t be ridiculous! \*\*Tuckerfan \*\* is on the mark! All the passengers are interned in some desert islands and like the [Truman Show](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/), they are unwilling actors in a TV show called _Lost_. lol … is Barbara Olson, the past conservative commentator for CNN, helping host it! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ins\_Outs\_What-have-yous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8797f3/32.png) [@Ins\_Outs\_What-have-yous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ins_Outs_What-have-yous)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/112 "2006-04-03T05:48:26Z")
For sake of brevity, I will refer to conspiracy theorists as CTs from now on. I am overall disappointed with my fellow dopers in this thread; the discussion has focused too much on bizarre theories of robot planes and missiles which are easiest to debunk IMO. As a result, the thread has steered into jokes about “area 57” and reality TV. As I stated earlier in this thread my former boss (well…quasi-former boss since I still help out on projects occasionally) is a CT. FTR, He does not believe robot planes or missiles hit the Pentagon or any WTC buildings. I introduced a couple of his ideas (i.e. US wants to transport oil across Afghanistan and WTC collapse was assisted by explosives) in order to spark some debating that might help me argue against some of the CT’s points. I have argued with him in the past about the collapse of the WTC buildings #1 and #2. He doens’t even think it was possible for the planes’ impacts and ensuing fires to cause the collapse the way it happened. He contends that because steel melts at 2700°C and that the steel was certified to withstand 2000°C for 6 hours that the buildings had to be assisted by explosives since the fuel under ideal conditions would only have reached about 1800°C. My argument to this is that the collapse was possble w/o explosives because the sporatic burning fuel would not have created uniformly distributed temperatures within the impact zone. Likewise, the resulting temperature gradient from one side of a row of steel columns to another would have caused bending in the steel, which would then yield much sooner than 6 hours especially under the extra load from the floors above. I am no expert, but I am about to complete my bachelor’s in materials science and engineering so I felt as if I could argue with him at least on that particular idea. The CT (my former boss, that is) invited me by email to one of his public presentation about 9/11. I declined but I did ask him to address a couple questions. > [@](#): > > Orginally written by **ArchitectChore** in an email > \*[CT], > > Thank you for the invitation. I doubt that I’ll be home until sometime in May after finals, but am always curious to learn more. Regretfully, I haven’t been in Charleston since early January. I appreciate all your information on the 9/11 events and related conspiracy analyses. For several years now, I have disagreed with some of your theories but I hardly consider myself to have enough expertise and knowledge to really give provide an in-depth debate. > > Now and then, I try to argue on in favor of conspiracy to my peers. Some become interested in my argument but remain skeptical and ask questions that I cannot always answer. Your website and related links have been helpful in ‘educating’ me, as it were. However, let’s say I’d like to be able to make a stronger case (if possible) for an organized demolition of WTC buildings 1 and 2… > > Have any structural engineers PUBLICLY supported the organized demolition theory of WTC 1 and 2? I cannot at this point. I have found physics profs and software engineers and mechanical engineers who publicly agree that the WTC collapse was assisted by explosives…but no structural engineers. > > The link below is a typical analysis by a real structural engineer: > > [http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf#search=‘collapse%20of%20the%20world%20trade%20center’](http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf#search='collapse%20of%20the%20world%20trade%20center') > > quoting from that link: > > > [@](#): > > > > “It is reasonable to assume that the force of the impact and subsequent > > fireball would have stripped the passive fire protection from most if not > > all of the steel members that remained in place within the impact > > region. If this is the case and the fire had been as severe as some > > have stated, the buildings would not have remained standing for as > > long as they did. Left unprotected, elements of any steel members > > exposed to severe fire conditions would have quickly reached > > temperatures close to the fire temperatures. We know this from the > > large-scale real fire tests conducted in recent years, in which the > > bottom flange and webs of unprotected beams and columns exposed > > to the fires reach 90% or more of the fire temperature and closely > > follow the fire time-temperature curve. The floor beams and exterior > > columns of these towers were relatively light members and would have > > heated up rapidly. Unprotected core columns would have heated up > > more slowly, but even in that case would not have survived 1 ¾ hours > > of severe fire exposure prior to collapse, especially if they had also > > been distorted by the impact. This is because the columns would have > > tried to expand with the heating and, being unable to do so by the > > surrounding cold building, would have instead buckled sideways > > leading to further loss of load carrying capacity. That was probably the > > mode of failure of any damaged core columns following the initial > > impact, however the fact that the buildings survived as long as they did > > after the impact indicates to me that most of the members that survived > > the initial impact were not then heated to very high temperatures.” > > The author does not rule out other factors but simply thinks the above is a “reasonable” assumption. > > The author does admit that his analysis is only guess-work but never does he suggest any explosives were involved. > > quoting again: > > > [@](#): > > > > In fact it is likely we will never be able to establish with absolute certainty the exact sequence between impact and collapse in either case. The above are > > simply my best guesses based on the information available and my > > experience of steel building behaviour in extreme events. > > Do other structural engineers (with a PE license) vehemently disagree? Do any SEs publicly support the idea that explosives were used to assist in the collapse? > > Also, do you have any sources that clearly show the United States’ intent to gain future access to oil through a trans-Afghanistan pipeline? > > Thank you for any help. Take care, > [ArchitectChore]\* His response dodges the question about structural engineers but he does speak of the oil pipeline a little bit and then babbles (as he has in the past) about secret patents and Nikola Tesla creating free energy out of thin air or something like that. He reaffirms what he has always told me about the alleged conspiracies and attached a file with several links. > [@](#): > > Originally written by a CT in email to **ArchitectChore** > \*Sorry to trouble you. I’m just telling you what I’m doing. You’ll visit, I’m sure when you are in the area. > > The debate on the collapse is hot among many. > > Your link is very good. On my web site [abodia.com - abodia Resources and Information.](http://www.abodia.com/911) > > I list links to Steven Jones & Morgan Reynolds analysis, which I think are very good. > > The $ 20 million study that says the fires brought them down is a lot of theory and calculations but not much common sense. > > I think Jones & Reynolds are much more realistic in reference to the known facts. > > I work on this many hours every day, for nearly 1 year. I have also found many other amazing things. > > I understand if you or others don’t believe me. I think that the 2,000+ articles I’ve read give me a deep understanding of incredible inter connected events. > > Others who DO believe me find it difficult to talk to others, ‘cause they don’t have my conviction (based on my study) and don’t have ample facts. It is easier to just quote someone. > > The New York magazine [which had an article on 911 conspiracies last week] to 2 million people is a strong statement. > > [ArchitectChore] this is complicated stuff. E-mail takes such effort. > > Argentina had a contract to manage the pipeline in Taliban (Afghanistan) > > US forces fought that in court for years, and finally gave $ 40 million (gift) to Taliban right before 9-11 war. > > But they could not break the contact the Taliban had given Argentina (I have all that here somewhere) > > So they went to war to destroy the government and that contract. > > Actually the British were the first to set-up troops to attack there. All that was done months before 9-11 > > 9-11 just served as a cover for the war that was underway. The planning and prep and placement of troops were done far in advance of 9-11 > > I have 500 articles on all this that I’ve saved. I’ve read about 2,000 articles on all phases of this. > > And have 300 book marks to web page links. I’ve bought about 20 books on this and related subjects. > > Most people want 1 or 2 facts to make their determination. > > I base my conclusions on 500+ facts that don’t fit the Cover Story. > > I did not want to explore this and do not want to continue, BUT > > Newpapers, Senate, public will not consider the facts and that leaves our democracy at great risk. > > Patriot Act, Homeland Se.curity, War and much much more deep evil things are on—going without checks or obstacles. I feel personally responsible to get this straightened out. > > Many see the problems with 9/11, but don’t act. I see problems much worst and much deeper. > > By accepting 9/11 conspi.racy, I’ve been open to explore related things and have found incredible things – again that are obvkious, that I’d never considered before. I am humbled by the efforts of others to put info out to the public, > > One individual in AZ from observing the sky has drawn people from across the country to understand about ChemTrails, although government, Air Force and media will not admit of this activity. > > My life is consumed with the new reality I’d never imagined. Come visit some time, I think I could certainly amaze you. I have 300 hours of broadcast video / audio/ books, that is further evidence of these subjects, including testimonials and videos of and by our Astronauts. I do have trouble managing all this info. > > If you’d like I can send you a CD with all these files. > > I have read much and bring you my feelings. For me to articulate all the reasons, you have to go back to the articles. Even today strong forces try to make Cover Story work, but it is coming apart, and millions have figured this out. > > Inertia – something a rest resists to move. Something moving resists to change direction or stop moving. > > So it is in the minds of men, once they believe one thing, it takes tremendous effort to change their way of thinking. > > Who wants to bother with 9/11. I DO, because it points to much more serious terrible things on going. > > 9/11 is just the tip of the iceberg. > > Anti-gravity is real, free energy is real, Tesla and many technologies have been sealed from the public. Nearly 4,000 patenes a year, sealed from public, (for nearly 100 years this is on going) Inventors stopped from talking, using, promoting their ideas, yet the government can use them (privately / secre.tly) Given that the militay has ½ our tax dollar, and ¼ of their bud.get is not overseen by Senate, (Bla.ck Bud.g.et) they have had billions of dollars for decades. Do you want to know what they have been doing ? – Unbelievable ! > > Einstein was wrong, ether exist. Tesla sent free electricity into space without wires to operate devices at a distance, claimed to have 250 mile death ray (like plasma ray gun of today) He had that stuff nearly a century ago. Why do you know this, (not in public forum) How can you / I find this stuff, Search with names, dates, patents. > > Real history is very different from public perception, and there are powerful forces to keep it secret. > > Public is hypnotized, moved from primary events thru textbooks, TV, and other deceptive devices. 1984 is HERE > > What you learn in science is fine, no comment, but the things that are NOT in the public forum are incredible.\* Please, can you Dopers help me out with better arguments to counter his ideas? He is a bit nutty, but very educated and always reasonable. For what it’s worth, here are the links from a file he attached to the email (I have not read them yet): [Morgan Reynolds: No More Games](http://www.nomoregames.net/) [Why did the WTC towers drop so easily?](http://www.newsfocus.org/wtc_fire.htm) [Congress holds the key](http://newswithviews.com/Brownlow/david49.htm) [Rumsfeld Sept 10, 2001: The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 TRILLION](http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/national/pentagon_missing_trillions) [PNAC](http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html) [Scientific Evidence that Official 9/11 Story is a Lie](http://www.ditrianum.org/Artikelen/artikel33en.htm) [Global Elite: Who are they?](http://newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick6.htm) [The New York Magazine: Ground Zero Grassy Knoll](http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html) > [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > > [@ArchtiectChore](#): > > > > Yes, I know. I took courses in failure analysis taught at an ABET accredited engineering program. > > That does not a structural engineer make. I never claimed to have any credentials especially not those of a professional structural engineer. The fucking point is that I am familiar with failure analysis. > [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > [Nope.](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y) > > > [@](#): > > > > Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. “I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building,” he tells PM. “I only said that that’s what it looked like.” The CT believes Romero was pressured into making that statement. YMMV. Romero’s initial statement and witness accounts of bombs going off in the basement of the towers and that Bush’s relative was in charge of security and bombs were wired under his watch or something like that encourage the CTs to think that the towers’ collapse was bomb assisted. The insurance policy for terrorism on the WTC purchased a few months prior to attacks also does not help to quiet the CTs. > [@JohnT](#): > > > [@clairobscur](#): > > > > I never stated that the pipeline had anything to do with 9/11… > > The royal “you”. The pipeline theory was, of course, brought up by **ArchitectChore**. Stories about a proposed pipeline did not simply “peeter out” after 2004 as you suggested and I proved it to you. Just admit that you were wrong and try to produce a better argument against the idea that world leaders for many years now have been discussing plans to build a pipeline linking oil under the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean (some discussions involved Afghanistan). One can debate whether or not this motivated the Bush administration to cause another Pearl Harbor type incident in order to have the nation’s backing on a war in Afghanistan. I never said that the pipe had been built. We are at least a few decades away from international oil crisis so what would be the hurry to build one? * * * I do happen to know a couple structural engineers (a PE and a PhD) who are skeptical of the WTC collapse (especially building #7) but they do not wish to be identified publicly. However, they both agree that [the scenerio written by this SE](http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf#search='collapse%20of%20the%20world%20trade%20center') is a reasonable guess regarding buildings #1 and #2. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/113 "2006-04-03T06:04:48Z")
Well, I have to admit I found the Area 57 thing funny…made more so that I was caught so fast. 😛 However: > [@ArchitectChore](#): > > I have argued with him in the past about the collapse of the WTC buildings #1 and #2. He doens’t even think it was possible for the planes’ impacts and ensuing fires to cause the collapse the way it happened. He contends that because steel melts at 2700°C and that the steel was certified to withstand 2000°C for 6 hours that the buildings had to be assisted by explosives since the fuel under ideal conditions would only have reached about 1800°C. My argument to this is that the collapse was possble w/o explosives because the sporatic burning fuel would not have created uniformly distributed temperatures within the impact zone. Likewise, the resulting temperature gradient from one side of a row of steel columns to another would have caused bending in the steel, which would then yield much sooner than 6 hours especially under the extra load from the floors above. I am no expert, but I am about to complete my bachelor’s in materials science and engineering so I felt as if I could argue with him at least on that particular idea Its late so I didn’t have time to look up that cite from the actual building designer, describing exactly why the building collapsed. However, here is another [cite](http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) I used in the past, and it deals with the temperature thing you are talking about here: > [@](#): > > THE FIRE > The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true. > > Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. > > In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat. > > In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame. > > In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. > > Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types. > > If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C. > > This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. > > But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best. > > Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot. > > It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire. > > The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire Its a pretty good account of why the temperature thing is a boondoggle by CT types. Read through the whole cite…some fairly good stuff there about the collapse and such. If I have time tomorrow I’ll see if I can dig up that cite from the guy who actually helped design the building as he did a great job of modeling exactly what happened to the building…and why there is zero mystery as to why it collapsed from the aircraft impacts. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/114 "2006-04-03T06:14:36Z")
**ArchitectChore** , it’s pretty simple, really: If they’re willing to kill ~3K people for a pipeline (or to start a war or whatever), then they’d be _more_ than willing to whack anyone who got within a stone’s throw of the truth. And forget the whole “Going public is what keeps me alive!” argument. The PTB could simply stage a horrific event, like say a hurricane that wipes out most of the Gulf Coast, and enact various FEMA statutes which enable them to suspend the Constitution and thus rule the country by fiat and have the annoying little “truth teller” meet an unsavory end, either in the disaster or in front of a firing squad. ---
**Author:** ![Ins\_Outs\_What-have-yous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8797f3/32.png) [@Ins\_Outs\_What-have-yous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ins_Outs_What-have-yous)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/115 "2006-04-03T08:25:10Z")
> [@ArchitectChore](#): > > I have argued with him in the past about the collapse of the WTC buildings #1 and #2. He doens’t even think it was possible for the planes’ impacts and ensuing fires to cause the collapse the way it happened. He contends that because steel melts at 2700°C and that the steel was certified to withstand 2000°C for 6 hours that the buildings had to be assisted by explosives since the fuel under ideal conditions would only have reached about 1800°C. My argument to this is that the collapse was possble w/o explosives because the sporatic burning fuel would not have created uniformly distributed temperatures within the impact zone. Likewise, the resulting temperature gradient from one side of a row of steel columns to another would have caused bending in the steel, which would then yield much sooner than 6 hours especially under the extra load from the floors above. I am no expert, but I am about to complete my bachelor’s in materials science and engineering so I felt as if I could argue with him at least on that particular idea These temperatures should have units in °F and not °C. :smack: > [@Tuckerfan](#): > > ArchitectChore, it’s pretty simple, really: If they’re willing to kill ~3K people for a pipeline (or to start a war or whatever), then they’d be more than willing to whack anyone who got within a stone’s throw of the truth. And forget the whole “Going public is what keeps me alive!” argument. The PTB could simply stage a horrific event, like say a hurricane that wipes out most of the Gulf Coast, and enact various FEMA statutes which enable them to suspend the Constitution and thus rule the country by fiat and have the annoying little “truth teller” meet an unsavory end, either in the disaster or in front of a firing squad. I doubt the CT will buy this, but I’ll let him know what you said. * * * I still have yet to see a good explanation for the collapse of WTC #7. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/116 "2006-04-03T14:38:57Z")
> [@ArchitectChore](#): > > These temperatures should have units in °F and not °C. See what he thinks of my cite above. Its a pretty good explaination about why you don’t have to get the temperature all the way up to melting point in order to have a collapse. As the cite says at 450C structural steel begins to soften and at 650C it has lost 50% of its strength. The fire was estimated in the 800C range. Couple that with the fact the plane itself took out several load bearing members, and the way that the fire was uneven with a high temperature variance between one side of the remaining support beams and the other and its pretty obvious what happened. If your friend knows anything about structures and load he’ll know that you need to maintain a balance on the load, especially when we are talking about the kinds of weights we are talking about in a modern building (as an experiment simply try and build a brick wall out of true and see what happens about the 6th course :)). Once enough of the remaining load bearing supports warped out of true the weight above would have doomed the building to collapse. Anyway, their explaination is better. See what he thinks. Just know that its been my experience that many of these CT type people are immune to facts…so don’t be disappointed if it falls on deaf ears. 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/117 "2006-04-03T19:39:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Stories about a proposed pipeline did not simply “peeter out” after 2004 as you suggested and I proved it to you. Just admit that you were wrong and try to produce a better argument against the idea that world leaders for many years now have been discussing plans to build a pipeline linking oil under the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean (some discussions involved Afghanistan). One can debate whether or not this motivated the Bush administration to cause another Pearl Harbor type incident in order to have the nation’s backing on a war in Afghanistan. I never said that the pipe had been built. We are at least a few decades away from international oil crisis so what would be the hurry to build one? The assertion wasn’t, as you recast it, whether or not a pipeline was planning on being built (and you have STILL yet to prove that the thing is in any phase of construction other than in “talks”), but that 9/11 was committed as to get the pipeline project moving. That’s what _you_ have to prove, since it was you who brought it up in the debate. Just because “world leaders” are talking about it doesn’t mean squat. “World leaders” talk about many things. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/118 "2006-04-03T19:47:53Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > See what he thinks of my cite above. Its a pretty good explaination about why you don’t have to get the temperature all the way up to melting point in order to have a collapse. As the cite says at 450C structural steel begins to soften and at 650C it has lost 50% of its strength. The fire was estimated in the 800C range. Couple that with the fact the plane itself took out several load bearing members, and the way that the fire was uneven with a high temperature variance between one side of the remaining support beams and the other and its pretty obvious what happened. -XT Couple _that_ with the fact that the weakening beams were supporting 96,000,000 pounds of WTC and it’s no wonder that one doesn’t need the steel to “melt” in order to suffer a catastrophic failure. ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/119 "2006-04-03T20:21:09Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > People expect buildings to tip over like a skyscraper in a Godzilla movie. Except really tall buildings don’t work that way. The forces holding the building together are pretty weak compared to the force of gravity, and when a large building collapses it collapses like a house of cards–straight down. Can it reasonably be said that, in fact, gravity pulling straight down holds the building up, as long as the components are properly aligned, but that once the alignment is damaged or destroyed, everything just falls straight down? It actually is intuitive that the buildings would head straight for the ground – the shortest distance between two points being a straight line. And the buildings wouldn’t fall over, because they were weakened two-thirds or three-fourths of the way up. The illusion that the whole building sank at once is caused by the fact that the only part of the building people saw fall was the part ABOVE the damage. Of course, it would descend straight down as a whole, once the structure below it was weakened enough. The rest of the collapse was masked by dust and smoke. We saw the lower floors for a few seconds before they, too, collapsed, but the actual collapsing was unseeable. If we just remember what those old science teachers taught us, well, the whole conspiracy thing collapses under its own weight. ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/120 "2006-04-03T20:45:28Z")
> [@jeffrice](#): > > Can it reasonably be said that, in fact, gravity pulling straight down holds the building up, as long as the components are properly aligned, but that once the alignment is damaged or destroyed, everything just falls straight down? It actually is intuitive that the buildings would head straight for the ground – the shortest distance between two points being a straight line. And the buildings wouldn’t fall over, because they were weakened two-thirds or three-fourths of the way up. The illusion that the whole building sank at once is caused by the fact that the only part of the building people saw fall was the part ABOVE the damage. Of course, it would descend straight down as a whole, once the structure below it was weakened enough. The rest of the collapse was masked by dust and smoke. We saw the lower floors for a few seconds before they, too, collapsed, but the actual collapsing was unseeable. > > If we just remember what those old science teachers taught us, well, the whole conspiracy thing collapses under its own weight. Oops! In editing, I edited out a whole paragraph! Insert between my two paragraphs this thought: Lemur866 and ArchitectChore go to great lengths to cite sophisticated structural engineering, and the reason their posts make sense to me is that I stayed awake in sixth grade science class. I watched our science teacher bend a steel rod heated with a simple bunsen burner, not because the steel melted, but because the heat changed the dynamics of the steel (or however structural engineers would say it.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948.md?page=7)