Comments on: Rosie and the Slime from the Video

By: American Infidel

American Infidel — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 05:15:09 +0000

I am so sick and tired of these armchair conspiricy theorists talking out their ass. You guys don’t know squat about what happens in a fire, yet you like to try and sound all official with your links, and totally ignore experts. Well, I am a career fireman and let me tell you something about fires and the heat they cause as well as what steel does. In a normal room and contents fire, like you would have in a regular familial dwelling, the heat at knee level reaches about 130 degrees F., at head level (or approx. 6′) it jumps up to approx. 900 degrees f., and at ceiling level it reaches upwards of 1900-2200 degrees F. That is just with normal room contents as fuel. When you add all the fuel of the office complexes plus the jet fuel that EXPLODED upon impact, you definately get heat in excess of 2000 degrees INSTANTLY. This is why so many floors were involed so quickly other than just those that were impacted by the aircraft. Steel only needs to have DIRECT FLAME IMPINGEMENT for 5 MINUTES at that heat range before it will start to twist and lose structural integrity. In a normal familial dwelling, this would lead to a ceiling collapse when it hits the steel gussets and such for 5 minutes. When the airliners hit the building, it lead to the flame retardants being knocked off of the steel beams. These beams had already been previously photographed and documented as having had differing amounts removed by various means prior to 9-11. SInce there was much longer than 5 minutes of direct flame impingement, and fires only get stronger with every passing minute, it is not that difficult to have the steel weaken by the 45 minute point. No one is claiming that the steel “melted” except the Truthers, because they don’t have a freaking clue. As for building 7, it had been on fire all day. The fire was started by falling debris and since there was a great deal of recovery efforts underway, the decision was made early to pull out the men from the building and basically write it off. This is a common occurance on the fire ground when buildings are cleared of life. It then turns into a “surround and drown” operation as we are not in the business of giving our lives for unoccupied buildings. After so many hours on fire, the building will naturally collapse. As for other buildings such as the one in Spain getting hit, that building, as well as others, were not constructed in the same manner as the WTC. The WTC was not built in a step form and it was built with an exoskeleton rather than the normal way skyscrapers were built. Try watching the History channel special on the construction of the buildings that was made a year BEFORE the attacks. Now, of course they also remove every other terrorist attack before 9-11 including the prior bombing of the same buildings and the more than 7000 terrorist attacks world wide since 9-11, but never let it be said that they ever let facts and logical thought get in the way of their bong filled drams of anti-American conspiratorial thinking and plots. Next time you truthers want to tell your opinion, don’t, ok? You really do make yourselves look like idiots.

By: Roy Dudley

Roy Dudley — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:22:41 +0000

Gramfan,

Finally, yes I am a degreed engineer. Michigan State in 1970 in both ME and EE but that’s irrrelevent. Let’s just accept what you’ve said about steel having to “soften” to be sufficient for a catastrophic, 100-story collapse at free fall speeds.

I have to admit I must have slept through the course you’re describing but I do know this: Natural gas under pressure (3psi – 5psi) will hit temperatures far exceeding the temperatures of hydrocarbon fuel (jet fuel) burning in the air… that’s an empirical fact…look it up.

That given, I’m sure sometime in the near future you’ll snap bolt upright out of a sound sleep with the shocking revelation that if what you come to understand this is true…then the next time you cook something on your gas stove you’ll be shocked to find the burners and pots remain intact.

Look, jet fuel in and of itself cannot melt, or even soften the NIST-graded steel you’re referring to…no matter how long it burns.

And, if that’s a stretch for you, let’s just focus on the genesis of this thread which was O’donnel saying “…WTC wasn’t hit by ANYTHING…no jet fuel, no airplanes…NOTHING”. What about that?

Just a fact. Look it up, please, before flaming me or others. I’m trying to keep this fact-based and civil without name-calling. If you do the same, I’ll continue.

I’ll look at your links and you look at mine and maybe we can return to a world of civil discourse. What to give it a shot?

Regards to all,

Roy Dudley

By: Roy Dudley

Roy Dudley — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:12:49 +0000

Gramfan, last post didn’t include the URL, sorry. Here’s the link this time with both web and video:
A New Standard for Deception
nine11Revolution – 9 min – Dec 13, 2006 – (12 ratings)
… scientific methods Ryan exposes in abundance. Ryan explains details of the investigation by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L96KVVk6z8

And the web pages:

How & Why the World Trade Center fell on 9/11
How WTC 7 Collapsed; Consider the facts; Timeline of the WTC collapses on 9/11; NIST Whistle-blower Scientifically Explains; Why Indeed Did the WTC …

By: Roy Dudley

Roy Dudley — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:10:13 +0000

Gramfan,

NIST never took a stand on their certification of the WTC steel. In fact, when a senior NIST engineer raised the same issues in my last post…he was fired.

Check this out:

WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower
A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made … NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering …

By: Gramfan

Gramfan — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 06:43:19 +0000

The steel just has to heat up enough to become weak, and thereby collapse. All first-year structural engineers know this.

WTF would you know? Have you got a PhD in structural engineering?
Yet another instant expert on something that takes years and years of study.

Dead on what H. Rabin? Lunacy? I agree!

By: H. Rabin

H. Rabin — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 06:25:15 +0000

What’s so wrong about what she said? I’d say she was dead on for once.

By: Gramfan

Gramfan — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:29:02 +0000

I consider these 2 links to be more accurate than what “Roy” has posted.

Digg? That must be at least as good as wikipedia,lol!!

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Check them out.

By: Roy Dudley

Roy Dudley — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:36:40 +0000

Desert Storm Vet suggests Popular Mechanics as a counterpoint to Loose Change 2nd Edition. I’d like to offer the following give-and-take debate between the 2 positions: http://www.digg.com/videos/educational/ 9_11_Debate_Loose_Change_vs_Popular_Mechanics – 761k – Cached – Similar pages

Regards to all,

Roy

By: Roy Dudley

Roy Dudley — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:22:07 +0000

Gramfan makes the comment about metal heating up and softening, which is possible if the temperatures to melt steel could be reached. Jet A fuel (basically kerosene) will burn at approximately 1200 F in open air…no matter how long it burns. Structural steel must be raised to over 2400 degrees to become malleable — that’s why they inject pure oxygen into the blast furnaces to covert iron ore into steel.

A more complete point-by-point explanation is made by Dr. Steven Jones of Brigham Young University (head of physics). His comments about Thermite and Thermate being used are particularly telling.

Oh, and one last thing…the man who was head of the company responsible for security at the entire WTC complex was…are you ready? Marvin Bush, George Bush’s brother. Don’t believe it? Hit this link: There were many unusual evacuations and power-downs in the WTC in the days just prior to 9/11. Marvin Bush, George W. Bush’s brother, was one of the owners …
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4260823951534797708

And here’s the scientific case for controlled demolition:

What Convinced BYU Physics Prof. That 9/11 Was Inside Job ~ see his answer~WTC 7
4 min – Oct 11, 2006 – (23 ratings)
Watch BYU Physics Prof. Dr. Steve Jones answer what evidence convinced him that 9/11 was an inside job. Simply put… the molten metal. Extremely …
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5901090782702056152

By: Roy Dudley

Roy Dudley — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:10:36 +0000

Dave asks what other buildings have been hit by jetliners full of fuel? I’d offer the following best example in the Windsor Building crash and fire in Madrid, Spain. This building was hit by a jetliner, burned for 2 days and did not collapse.

Photos & Videos of the Madrid Skyscraper Fire …
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html – 9k – Cached – Similar pages

Further to Dave’s comment, granted WTC 1 and 2 were hit. However WTC 7 was not hit by anything…and yet it collapsed onto its own footprint.

Even more telling is the fact the BBC announced the collaspe of WTC7 a full 23 minutes BEFORE it collapsed! Don’t believe it? Hit this link for the live broadcast on BBC — I think they may have jumped the gun on the “prepared script”. Here’s the link:

BBC Announces WTC7 Collapse Before It Happens!
BlamePenguins – 7 min – Feb 27, 2007 – (29 ratings)
BBC News announced Building 7′s (Salomon Brothers Building) collapse nearly 25 minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed! As if that wasn’t enough, they actually …