I disagree. An hour later, 50,000 people would have been there. I’m sure the terrorists knew that.
Evidence is on the way.
To take a different tact, since the facts have already been pointed out to you (it’s ironic that you would bring up that people aren’t reading your posts, ehe? :p), think about what you are saying here. Eye-witnesses say they saw something. Ok…so what? Eye witnesses often say they see things, but are nearly always wrong. Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Where is anything at all that is tangible? If there was molten steel, then where is it? Where is the evidence that it was there? Where are the lab results? Where is the expert testimonial? Why base your entire hypothesis here on the flimsy base of what some people THOUGHT they saw?
No…you are not going to bring steel to a molten (i.e. liquid) state in an office fire. What of it? We know from video evidence as well as modeling of the collapses, that the event started at the point of impact. We know that the fire alone was sufficient to bring about that collapse. We have evidence of all this…real, tangible evidence, real expert testimonial. Overwhelming expert testimonial in fact.
On the other side, we have…some possible anomalies based on eye witnesses who weren’t experts and a few photos which are ambiguous in what, if anything, they show.
Frankly, I don’t see how anyone can weigh the evidence and possibly even be undecided about this, let alone seriously consider the CT. It’s laughable, if you think about it…but then, the key word there is ‘think’.
Seriously? You conceded that it looked ‘silver’. Ok…as a thought experiment, what would a puddle of mercury (silver in color) look like if you shined a red light on it? What would it look like if, oh, say there was a fire reflected in it?
Again…you are seriously grasping here. Because, what would liquid aluminum look like with, oh, say copper (reddish in color, last time I looked) mixed in? Or some other impurities?
And all these contortions you are going through to try and make the ‘molten metal’ (undefined) into ‘molten steel’ because, what? You want it to be, and it’s the only way you could work something like, say, nano-thermite into the discussion? Even though, like the ‘molten steel’ thing, there is no evidence that such a (magical) substance even exists (well, we know molten steel exists, just not at the WTC collapse sites), let alone evidence that it was ever used.
If it can deform, warp and bend, then it can bring the towers down. No magical, supernatural, or evil government plot needed. No explosives or sooper dooper nano-thermite needed. Then, a reasonable person can say ‘well, on one side we have eye witness testimonials and some obscure and ambiguous pictures. On the other, we have mountains of evidence, and none of it includes anything about actual molten steel. I’m going with the mountains of evidence and chalking up the eye witness testimonial to the people making those statements as being misquoted (a favorite of the CT gang), quoted out of context (another), wrong or mistaken.’
-XT
An hour later, 50K people would have been there for their normal work. Yeah, television news crews are well noted for covering something as newsworthy as people showing up for work on a normal workday.
Care to provide actual evidence of your assertions?
When we talk about Conspiracy Theories, we are not talking about actuyal conspiracies. The phrase (as used in American English in the 20th and 21st centuries), means crazy talk involving massive cover-ups. I realize that you would like to be able to include all conspiracies under the Conspiracy Theory umbrella–that would give you some cover for always holding out hope that some CT will turn out to be real–but that is not how the phrase is used.
Laugh it off, but I know you know I’m talking about degrees. No way an office fire gets that hot.
I’ve asked it before (perhaps in a thread specifically for that) and I’ll ask it again: Why is to important for you CTs to have the government culpable at every level, every stage, every moment of the disaster?
Thanks. It’s honesty the only way I can relate to you, since it’s clear that actual facts and evidence have no effect.
I’ve seen this answered in a couple of these threads pretty well (and in the 9/11 2 hour debunking show on NatGeo), but it boils down too…some people are really uncomfortable with the idea that chaotic things can just happen. For these people, it’s more comforting to believe that it’s all being brought about by a big, shadowy government organization, who is manipulating the public and events for their own nefarious reasons, than it is to think about a couple of schlubs with box cutters simply getting lucky and slipping through the cracks. If the world really is chaotic enough that a bunch of mopes can really hurt a country like the US so bad (and, of course it IS that chaotic), then it puts their world view in free fall…where as, if we did it to ourselves, then it’s almost a comfort.
…
…
Yeah, I don’t get it either.
-XT
It doesn’t have to. Because there was no molten steel at the World Trade Center.
There is a lot of discussion of 9-11 on The Democratic Underground. I thought this was good…
[QUOTE]
[Speaking as an engineer…
You’re joking, right?
Intense seismic spikes didn’t result from strikes on the towers nearly a thousand feet in the air. The structure would have dampened the initial energy pulse before it was transmitted into bedrock. That the impacts could have been detected seismologically, perhaps. That the impacts caused intense spikes, please.
As for the heat, jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. If it did, jet engines would be very short-term constructs. In the case of the towers, the fuel burned in overly rich (low temperature) conditions that came nowhere near the melting point of steel that was certified to a high melting point, specifically to reduce the danger of fire damage to the structure.
And here’s the biggie! X amount of heat is still X amount of heat no matter where, when or how you contain it. The only way you could get a profound temperature rise by burying it would be if it were buried near enough the earth’s core to absorb heat from the mantle.
Physicist my ass.
Go cook some potatoes.
/QUOTE]
-From The Democratic Underground
My theory is that there is a psychological urge to show intellectual superiority, particularly against lauded, degreed, and otherwise smart people. It’s a grown up version of “I know something you don’t know!” In a general sense, it’s the same type of thing that leads people to listen to obscure rock music–not because it’s better, but because it’s not mainstream. It’s a conscious effort to distance one’s self from the pack mentality. I’m not one of the sheep. I’m informed.
We’re all guilty of it to one degree or another, but CT’ers tend to be some of the most visible examples. That’s why debunking any one particular ‘theory’ only leads to a “yeah, BUT…” response. It’s the classic multiple out.
Do people just continually stick fingers in ears and scream la-la-la?
Yes, fine, jet fuel doesn’t melt steel. Straw man. Nowhere in the NIST (you know, the report compiled by actual engineers) report is melted steel required. Let me say it again:
There was no melted steel in the World Trade Center.
Straw man. The temperature of the fire under the rubble doesn’t come into play, because…wait for it…
There was no melted steel at the World Trade Center.
I don’t know what happened, nor do I claim to. This thread makes me want to dig even deeper. I expressed a doubt, and was attacked. That’s fine, I understand that you can’t even talk about 9/11 today. I do know the government has lied in the past. If they are holding back something now, I think it matters, now more than ever.
I could ask you why you are so eager to believe that persons in the government are not culpable.
I will admit, I no longer think our government has the best interest of the people in mind.
What about the monolith. That wasn’t melted steel?
Well, as already noted, they doid not actually fall into their own footprints.
HOWEVER, to the extent that they gave the appearance of having done so, one needs to remember that WTC1 and WTC2 covered about an acre each. When an acre of building loses support, it falls down. You would have us believce that the building could have shifted an acre of material many stories high over to the side in despite of gravity, following an arc as though it was being pulled down with wires pulled from the side. WTC7, had nearly as large a footprint and was proportionately shorter, so it was not going to fall sideways unless you hooked it up to winches in the East River and pulled, as well.
There WERE NO molten hotspots in the wreckage. Not on the first day and certainly not in any successive days.
The entire claim of “molten” metal originated from the stories of only four people, only one of whom even saw any glowing metal, (the others were using the words to hyperbolically describe their sensation of heat when they walked across the wreckage), and not one of them was trained in any field that would allow them to identify molten steel. There have been photos posted by Troothers of glowing red steel–steel heated to about 600° F, well within the limits of the event–but there are no photos of molten steel because there was never molten steel there.
Molten steel is not orange or red or any related color. Molten steel is an intensely bright light that is almost colorless with a hint of pale green or, occasionally yellow, that keeps it from being pure white. There was none under the WTC.
I addressed the claims of molten steel a couple of years ago in one of the earlier threads.
What “monolith”? Are you talking about one of the piees of the building facade that landed upright in the debris?
Actually, the peak temperature inside a jet engine burner is quite hot enough to melt steel. Great effort goes into designing the airflow in the burners such that the flame front does not come in direct contact with any solid surfaces; the gas needs to expand, cool, and mix with surrounding air before it is allowed to come into contact with turbine blades. Furthermore the turbine blades in the stages nearest the burners are made out of fairly exotic steels that don’t lose strength with temperature quite so much, and often have internal air-cooling channels to keep them from overheating.
Monoliths melt 2001 F !
Talking about 9/11 is fine, and understand that this is strictly my opinion, but I believe that the propagation of logical fallacies, theories with no evidence to support them, and–in many cases, outright lies–dishonor the victims and heroes of 9/11. What pisses me off is that experts in the field have provided all the models, calculations, and evidence that truly leads to the scientific theory that the buildings fell because planes hit them and started fires. And yes, that’s still a scientific theory, not a ‘fact,’ because unlike the conspiracy theories, we could falsify it.
Dr. What’s-his-name could pen an article and attempt to have it published in a myriad of respected, academic, peer-reviewed journals and disprove the theory–if that were possible for him to do. It isn’t; not because the government is involved in a coverup, but because reputable scholars can see, readily, that it’s utter hogwash.
And I’m certainly not saying the government couldn’t or wouldn’t do such a thing–it’s just obvious in this case that they didn’t. I wouldn’t consider myself the most trusting person when it comes to the feds–I still think about Waco and Ruby Ridge with a shudder. But in this case, it’s just not realistic. At least not based on the same tired old CT theories that we’ve been going over.
No. I’m talking about a big ball-shaped mass of metal. We all know about the facade.
I can see that a lot of you have not really looked the evidence against the official story. I thought most of this was common knowledge, as it’s easily found on the internet.
I won’t post again until I gather all my cites, including a video showing molten steel flowing that looks red-yellow.