# 9/11 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2012, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099 "2012-07-13T12:46:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/261 "2012-07-20T00:08:31Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Actually, there were reports of the things you describe such as explosions, puffs of somke at key points, and flashes of light.. at least in the case of 1&2, and these reports are on video. You can mabye write them off as eyewitnesses not knowing what they are talking about, but those reports line up very well with what you yourself say you would look for in a controlled demolition. So you think that after burning for seven hours, someone set off a controlled demolition that had been prepared for weeks in advance without anyone noticing, and this worked perfectly because the seven-hour fire had left the miles of exposed detonation wiring untouched? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/262 "2012-07-20T00:10:48Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I watched the video. > > I only have one question. Around 24 to 25 seconds into the video, you can see a bright orange glow in the corner of the building. It looks like it’s flowing. This is the problem with all of your theories. You are seeing things no one else can see, then proceeding as if they are facts that must be accounted for. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/263 "2012-07-20T00:12:07Z")
This is a general reminder to everybody: remain civil and don’t comment on other people in the thread. Personal insults aren’t allowed in this forum. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2012, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/264 "2012-07-20T00:18:49Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I watched the video. > > I only have one question. Around 24 to 25 seconds into the video, you can see a bright orange glow in the corner of the building. It looks like it’s flowing. Aluminium melts at 1220F, steel much higher than that. Why do you assume it is aluminum? > [@](#): > > My question, do you think a jet fuel(kerosene) fire could melt aluminium or steel to the point that it flows like that? Irrelevant. The resolution is not sufficient to determine what it is. There is little need to assume it is metal at all. > [@](#): > > Keep in mind that people were seen standing in these holes. If it was a general fire, burning that hot, would they have even been able to get anywhere near it? Yes. Because the people were at the entry hole. Where the impact would have the very minor benefit of pushing the flammable materials out of the way. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/265 "2012-07-20T00:20:40Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Are you trying to tell me that these[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_A9X\_8flGeM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM) are bodies? > [@split\_p\_j](#): > > If you look around you can that one building has _already collasped_. That dust has settled. It can’t be explosions from the planes fireball. > > How do you explain these other sounds we hear? Are you trying to tell me those are not explosions we hear? Sound like [BLEVEs](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15291212&postcount=229) to me. 7 had several fuel tanks for generators; apply a sustained heat source and you get [something like this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLU) ([1:24 if you just want the explosion](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLU&t=1m24s)). ---
**Author:** ![sparky\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@sparky\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sparky_1)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/266 "2012-07-20T00:22:04Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Look, I don’t have to assume anything. I already said that I don’t have an alternate CT theory, nor do I need to provide one. > > I believe, based on the evidence I’ve seen, some of which I’ve linked to, that the buildings were wired for demolition. You can try to make the tin foil hat stuff stick to me but I reject that. > > My belief is logical, and I will keep asking questions untill I get an answer that jells with the evidence I’ve seen. > > The “offical” story does not do that. Anyone with a shred of physics education will understand that the buildings fell because of structural collapse. Add in even just a few low level structural engineering classes, and it is obvious that structural failure caused the collapse of the buildings. Structural steel does not do well with high heat. Structural steel many, many hundreds of feet up and weakened by heat does not do well with gravity. I’m sorry, but I know that all 9/11 CTers who suggest controlled demolition are uneducated people, usually with some axe to grind. You’d do well to educate yourself. I’d offer my assistance, but I really don’t think you want to be educated, but rather would like to keep grinding your axe. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/267 "2012-07-20T00:22:19Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I watched the video. > > I only have one question. Around 24 to 25 seconds into the video, you can see a bright orange glow in the corner of the building. It looks like it’s flowing. Aluminium melts at 1220F, steel much higher than that. Hard to tell. I can sort of see what you’re looking at, but with the graininess of the video I couldn’t tell if it was even liquid or solid material falling. > [@](#): > > My question, do you think a jet fuel(kerosene) fire could melt aluminium or steel to the point that it flows like that? Aluminum, no problem. I’ve seen aluminum parts melt in car fires. There were other materials that could also create a molten flow, including glass, or copper from wiring. But I’m not even convinced that we’re seeing a flowing liquid in that shot, versus falling debris leaving smoke trails. > [@](#): > > Keep in mind that people were seen standing in these holes. If it was a general fire, burning that hot, would they have even been able to get anywhere near it? There was more than one hole in the building, and not all parts of the building were on fire at the same time. Do you see any people standing in a hole in a part of the building that is currently on fire? More importantly, how does this help the controlled demolition theory? The cutting charges used in controlled demolitions don’t generate much heat. They sever structural beams by physically shearing through them with a focused shock wave, not by melting them. Pooling melted metal is more consistent with the theory that a hot fire weakened the structure enough to trigger a collapse. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/268 "2012-07-20T00:24:33Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > You don’t see the contradiction of these two statements? Actually, no I don’t. I think you are trying to bait me into coming up with some off the wall CT, which is a mistake that most people make. Then you can put your tin foil hat on me and dissmiss me as crazy. The offical 9/11 tale is in fact, a CT.[http://www.collativelearning.com/conspiracy%20theories%20-%20contents.html](http://www.collativelearning.com/conspiracy%20theories%20-%20contents.html)here is a link that kind of explains why I don’t really need an alternate theory. I can look at the evidence sorrounding 9/11 and see at least some of it is a lie, therefore the whole offical story is a lie. I know you want me to come up with some thing about remote crontrolled planes and drones, a missle hit the pentagon and whatever. The fact is I don’t have to. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2012, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/269 "2012-07-20T00:26:07Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > That is not what I’m saying. We have all seen that one of the few ways you bring a steel framed building down is with explosives or by taking it apart. We have seen that because that is how we dismantle buildings. We are not in the habit of destroying them by setting them ablaze. Tends to be rather messy, as can be seen. > [@](#): > > Earthquakes and all the other things listed can do it too, but _not in the way we saw on 9/11_. Irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I personally don’t have to be an engineer to understand this. Just like I don’t personally have to know how to grow corn to feed myself. But you do need to have some sense of how the building stands, why its structure varies from other buildings, the secondary results of an impact by the plane, etc. etc. Just saying ‘it looks like CD to me because that is all I have seen’ is not good failure analysis. > [@](#): > > By your logic, the Empire State building should have collasped when it was hit by a B-25. No. Because my logic accounts for the difference in the structural design, the difference in the airplanes, etc. Wheras your logic works on ‘never saw it do that before, must be a cause we are completely familiar with’. That’s a Cargo Cult bit of logic, there. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/270 "2012-07-20T00:27:58Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Actually, no I don’t. I think you are trying to bait me into coming up with some off the wall CT, which is a mistake that most people make. Then you can put your tin foil hat on me and dissmiss me as crazy. > > The offical 9/11 tale is in fact, a CT.[http://www.collativelearning.com/conspiracy%20theories%20-%20contents.html](http://www.collativelearning.com/conspiracy%20theories%20-%20contents.html)here is a link that kind of explains why I don’t really need an alternate theory. > > I can look at the evidence sorrounding 9/11 and see at least some of it is a lie, therefore the whole offical story is a lie. > > I know you want me to come up with some thing about remote crontrolled planes and drones, a missle hit the pentagon and whatever. > > The fact is I don’t have to. You realize this is how “creation science” works, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/271 "2012-07-20T00:28:21Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > The fact is I don’t have to. Right. Because the fact is that the controlled demolition theory _is a conspiracy theory_, and it’s a conspiracy theory not in the “a bunch of terrorists collaborating is a conspiracy” sense, but in the “WAKE UP SHEEPLE!” sense. You are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2012, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/272 "2012-07-20T00:30:16Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Irrelevant. The resolution is not sufficient to determine what it is. There is little need to assume it is metal at all. There was an uninterruptible power supply in that general location. Perhaps it’s giving off sparks? ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/273 "2012-07-20T00:31:32Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > There was an uninterruptible power supply in that general location. Perhaps it’s giving off sparks? If the UPS had lead-acid batteries, we could even be seeing a flow of molten lead. I doubt it, but it’s another possibility. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/274 "2012-07-20T00:34:30Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > There was an uninterruptible power supply in that general location. Perhaps it’s giving off sparks? My ‘guess’, and I freely admit it is such, is that it is blobs of burning plastic. It reminds me too much of lighting plastic army men on fire in my friend’s yard as a kid and watching the blobs of sizzling, brightly-burning plastic blobs coming off the rifles. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2012, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/275 "2012-07-20T00:35:26Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I can look at the evidence sorrounding 9/11 and see at least some of it is a lie, therefore the whole offical story is a lie. Nice excluded middle you have there. The DoD was, in fact, caught in a lie because they were too busy trying to cover their collective ass. Doesn’t mean there were lies flying everywhere, much like how “explosions” are not all caused by explosives. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/276 "2012-07-20T00:43:25Z")
> [@AndrewL](#): > > Hard to tell. I can sort of see what you’re looking at, but with the graininess of the video I couldn’t tell if it was even liquid or solid material falling. > > Aluminum, no problem. I’ve seen aluminum parts melt in car fires. There were other materials that could also create a molten flow, including glass, or copper from wiring. But I’m not even convinced that we’re seeing a flowing liquid in that shot, versus falling debris leaving smoke trails. > > There was more than one hole in the building, and not all parts of the building were on fire at the same time. Do you see any people standing in a hole in a part of the building that is currently on fire? > > More importantly, how does this help the controlled demolition theory? The cutting charges used in controlled demolitions don’t generate much heat. They sever structural beams by physically shearing through them with a focused shock wave, not by melting them. Pooling melted metal is more consistent with the theory that a hot fire weakened the structure enough to trigger a collapse. Thin stamped aluminum parts as used in a car? Ok mabye they will melt. But, and I maybe mistaken, I thought the outside members of the WTC were stainless steel. No way that is melting from a kerosene fire. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/277 "2012-07-20T00:43:43Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Actually, no I don’t. I think you are trying to bait me into coming up with some off the wall CT, which is a mistake that most people make. Then you can put your tin foil hat on me and dissmiss me as crazy. I see. Wait, no I don’t. Let’s assume explosives really did bring down the buildings. No one has come forth to say they planted explosives, so doesn’t that make the act of using explosives covert? I make no claims about whether you are right or not, but by your own cite that means you are proposing a CT. > [@](#): > > Or to simplify it even further, a “conspiracy theory” is the perception that a group have engaged in a covert activity. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/278 "2012-07-20T00:45:50Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > You realize this is how “creation science” works, yes? Oh please, I gave links to evidence that explains why I believe what I do. You are the one taking it all on faith. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/279 "2012-07-20T00:48:43Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Oh please, I gave links to evidence that explains why I believe what I do. Your links don’t support your beliefs. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099/280 "2012-07-20T00:53:16Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Thin stamped aluminum parts as used in a car? Ok mabye they will melt. > > But, and I maybe mistaken, I thought the outside members of the WTC were stainless steel. No way that is melting from a kerosene fire. [The towers were clad in an aluminum alloy sheathing that gave the buildings a golden sheen at sunrise and sunset. The material covered the closely-spaced exterior steel columns, enhancing their soaring appearance.](http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=104) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11/628099.md?page=15)