September 11, 2001

[Jason]

Anyway, my five minute, first-hand experiment, appears to have debunked one bit of your "evidence". That seems quite problematic no?

No, not necessarily. Molten aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, meaning that although it will luminesce faintly across the standard red-yellow continuum, it appears silvery-gray in highly illuminated daylight conditions. Physics professor Steven E. Jones, among others, has shown this to be the case. What sort of lighting conditions were used in your experiment?

Very good point. The initial experiment was carried out in a well lit shed. After I read your response I moved outside to try it again.Today is completely clear, not a single cloud in the sky.

Result: when the molten aluminium is in direct sunlight I can't see any glow at all. However, still outside, if a shadow, such as from a tree, building or just from myself is cast over the aluminium, I can see a dim orangy/red glow.

I'm only heating up small pieces of aluminium, if there were a large puddle the glow might be easier to see. Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting these little experiments have anything to add or take from the experts opinions.

[Dan Rowden]

Jason,

Is there any chance that the collapse itself could create enough friction or compression etc to heat steel above its melting point?

I would say no.

Why would you say that? Because you did a computerized simulation using the most likely variable values, followed by real experiments, all backed up by a degree in material science with twenty years experience in metallurgy fields, in collaboration with a large team of structural engineers, architects, physicists etc? Didn't think so.

The thing you and Scott have in common with some of your argumentation is that you seem to think one can posit ideas out of the blue and their meaningfulness is not dependent upon expertise in a field, but when the idea is rebutted in some way expertise is necessary for the rebuttal to be meaningful. It's kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

I say "no" for a few reasons: 1) as a layman it doesn't make any sense to me - the idea of friction heat alone raising steel to melting temperature is absurd to me; 2) there was no evidence that I know of for this at ground zero - i.e. molten pools (or great gobs of quasi-melted steel for that matter) were not just lying around on the ground, they were in the basement areas and presented a mystery to those doing the cleanup; 3) I'm not aware of any experts who have advocated such a theory and no such theory appears to be forwarded in the official investigations of the event.

If such things do, in fact, exist, I'm happy to hear about them.

[Jason]

The thing you and Scott have in common with some of your argumentation is that you seem to think one can posit ideas out of the blue and their meaningfulness is not dependent upon expertise in a field, but when the idea is rebutted in some way expertise is necessary for the rebuttal to be meaningful. It's kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

I can understand why some of my comments in this thread (you are only talking about my comments in this thead, right?)might appear like that. Really all I'm doing is playing devil's advocate, just throwing around some light counter-arguments that I essentially pulled out of my arse. I don't take too seriously any of those possibilities I wrote about, but then I generally don't take many of the claims made about these things by other non-experts too seriously either.

So all in all, I think my lightweight devil's advocate counter-arguments could have at least some utility within this context, all I'm really trying to do is help people further analyze the ideas and scenarios they are presenting.

[Dan Rowden]

I think we're all playing Devil's Advocate to some extent on this issue. I'm not sure there's much else to be done in a really concrete way.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's no doubt it were pools of molten iron under the wreckage for many weeks after the collapse. But as for the causes there are many ideas.

What many skeptics have pointed out is that iron, not unlike wood, can easily burn up by itself (oxidization). If the temperatures are high enough it can keep its own burn process alive with oxygen (or even water/steam) creating high enough temperatures for (further) melting and corroding.

The initial temperatures after the collapse must have been high because we have a law called preservation of energy. The kinetic energy [not just friction, but momentum] dissipated by the collapse didn't just disappear into thin air: it's converted to mostly heat. It has been compared to around 0.2 kiloton of TNT. It's enough to start the process of iron melting or burning. Because iron will keep 'burning' itself up, the temperatures kept high underneath the rubble for so long.

To me these theories cover quite well some of the mysteries of the 9/11 collapse. Some others are still open but the collapse is complex enough to allow for various solutions.

[NB: some of this is also documented at various sites like debunking911.com]

[DHodges]

That's one of the problems I have with a lot of this: a considerable amount of these claims really relate to very specialized and technical fields of knowledge(probably even interdisciplinary) that most people know little or nothing about. I agree that intuitively some of the arguments do seem to make sense, the point about how the buildings should fall sideways or buckle under localized assymetric damage seems intuitively correct, but intuition isn't enough for me in answering such questions.

I was thinking about this very issue last night. I'm not an engineer. I don't have the expertise to say whether the "pancaking" is plausible or not.

I think this is why the issue keeps coming up - and also why it can not be resolved. Certainly my intuition could be wrong. The official explanations, however, don't seem to really answer the questions about the non-intuitive nature of the collapse.

[sschaula]

Dan,

The thing you and Scott have in common with some of your argumentation is that you seem to think one can posit ideas out of the blue and their meaningfulness is not dependent upon expertise in a field, but when the idea is rebutted in some way expertise is necessary for the rebuttal to be meaningful. It's kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

I admitted to not knowing the truth, and that this thing would basically need to be replicated in order to say for sure. You should read more carefully.

I say "no" for a few reasons: 1) as a layman it doesn't make any sense to me - the idea of friction heat alone raising steel to melting temperature is absurd to me;

Exactly...as a layman. You don't actually know if it's true or not, but you're assuming it isn't.

2) there was no evidence that I know of for this at ground zero - i.e. molten pools (or great gobs of quasi-melted steel for that matter) were not just lying around on the ground, they were in the basement areas and presented a mystery to those doing the cleanup;

Which is precisely why it seems more likely that it was due to pressure and friction, and not explosives.

3) I'm not aware of any experts who have advocated such a theory and no such theory appears to be forwarded in the official investigations of the event.

If such things do, in fact, exist, I'm happy to hear about them.

Me too.

[Unidian]

Here is a ton of 9/11 debate I was involved in at another board a while back. I got banned from that board as a result of the ensuing conflict. Potentially worth a look for anyone who cares. It features contributions from Dan, Philosophaster, Katy (RoryJarrah), Victor, and other familiar characters.

[Dan Rowden]

Damn, that whole discussion collapsed into its own footprint. It's a trend, dammit. There was even pools of molten material that lasted weeks after!

[Unidian]

KEROSENE!

[Dan Rowden]

Well, whatever it was, it did kind of smell funny...

[Katy]

KEROSENE!

lol kerosene did wtc lol.


I forgot I posted in that thread.

[Unidian]

I'm still waiting for the professional demolition companies to realize they could save a fortune by slamming large objects full of kerosene into buildings, or just throwing some debris at them (in the case of WTC 7). They are throwing away so much money doing it the old-fashioned way, with the timed explosives and all.

[Tharan]

If our incompetent government, or any shadowy organizations representing it, were capable of successfully pulling off this 9/11 hoax, then they deserve whatever outcome they desired. And to be honest, it is difficult for me to believe that the current situation is anything that anyone would have desired.

Who wins here? Where's the motive?

[Unidian]

The PNAC didn't desire the massive increase in military spending we've seen? Bush and his pals didn't desire the vastly expanded executive powers they now have? Larry Silverstein didn't desire the billions he got from his insurance companies? Repukes across the board didn't desire the resulting flag-waving bonanza and the 2004 presidential election they couldn't have won (or plausibly stolen) otherwise?

You seriously don't see motive here? If not, there's nothing further I can really say.

[vicdan]

They definitely did not desire their power base, the GOP, to be teetering on the brink of implosion, as it is now.

[Unidian]

Nope, but that's not because of anything to do with 9/11. That is because they are corrupt, scandalized political failures who tried to get away with too much while delivering too little.

Think about how much more quickly they would have been run out on a rail had 9/11 not propped them up for several years.

[Unidian]

Scratch that, because had it not been for 9/11, they wouldn't even have had the opportunity to attempt most of their failed agenda.

[Tharan]

But the Republicans are affectively digging for themselves a desert of power for a decade or more. They wanted that? Their unabashed incompetence is historic in perspective. How can you seriously attribute anyone associated with this administration, or the last 2 Republican Congresses as capable of pulling off the most fantastic of conspiratorial hoaxes in the history of mankind? It would require David Copperfield-type illusion on both an exponentially grander scale than anything the illusionist has ever done as well as on the level of the detailed minutia that investigators from many different opinions, backgrounds, and expertise study so thoroughly. And we are talking about expert researchers from all over the world picking through the rubble.

[Unidian]

Meh. I don't buy that. I think it would involve a few guys planning it, a few guys setting up some explosives, and a few guys controlling it in real time. Add a few to dispose of most of evidence and you're set. None but the planners would need to know the whole story. The rest would only need to know whatever was directly involved in their part of it.

See Attack Scenario 404 for one arguably plausible version.

If it was an inside job, I'm sure Bush and the other bumbling political idiots wouldn't need to be directly involved (with the possible exception of Cheney). Undoubtedly most of it would be planned and carried out by people with shitloads of experience in this sort of thing - the kind of people who come up with things like Operation Northwoods.

[Jamesh]

The extent of my conspiracy theory on this matter is limited to a conspiracy of planned Intelligence inaction.

I believe Bush's neo-cons wanted a significant terrorist act to occur and handicapped or silenced intelligence agencies to such a degree that they became ineffective in preventing these incidents.

They simply needed a believable excuse to go to war. They needed a basis for their propaganda and what better way than
an attack on home soil.

Same strategy as the intelligence failings of Pearl Harbour or the neocon devised, incredibly poor planning for the occupation of Iraq.

Intelligence failings are a self protection mechanism of rulers. After the events occur, it is really difficult to jail people for negligence. Conspiracies of inaction are difficult to prove, whereas ones involving noticable actions (like say Watergate) are provable. There is always some degree of reasonable doubt - was the inaction planned or coincidental human error??

[sschaula]

You have to realize people aren't that smart. Intelligence failings are simply that. We are only human.

[vicdan]

If it was an inside job, I'm sure Bush and the other bumbling political idiots wouldn't need to be directly involved (with the possible exception of Cheney). Undoubtedly most of it would be planned and carried out by people with shitloads of experience in this sort of thing - the kind of people who come up with things like Operation Northwoods.

But Nat, all that Operation Northwoods shows is that those people are morally capable of making such decisions -- not that they are competent enough to actually pull it off. Northwoods was only proposed, never enacted; and had it been enacted, it would have been a major scandal, like Iran-Contra but worse. For that matter, Iran-Contra would have had to involve far fewer civilian bystandanders than MIHOP 9/11, it was carried out by a far more competent administration, and it still came to light.

Nobody disputes that there are people in the government evil enough; but the MIHOP scenario also requires them to be superhumanly competent.

[Tharan]

Nat,

And Iran-Contra was a much smaller scale operation that allowed operation under conver of darkness, so to speak. Even then they fucked it up and got caught. With 9/11, you are talking coordinated commercial air strikes with timed internal explosives, in broad daylight, with actors leaving person-to-person evidence (training), video surveillance evidence, Al-Queda coordination (strong circumstantial and eyewitness evidence), a completely clean paper trail, and total complicity among the dozens of necessary players.

Where do you get that it would only take a few guys?

[Tomas]

.


The 9/11 Mystery Plane (photos)

First in a series

http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

....

The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II)

Did the US Military Fudge the 9/11 Timeline?

http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm


.