Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-03-2008, 09:58 AM   #1
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default Shaky debunking

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

From: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

Probably? Doesn't sound very scientific to me. Plus there is a difference between steel and steel depending on chemical composition. Why do they talk about steel in so general terms? And what was the actual temperature? Wouldn't it have been very easy to determine that by examining the steel at ground zero? Why didn't they?
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 11:17 AM   #2
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

The Popular Mechanics hit piece has been proven to be just that, a hit piece.

Edit: Check out this radio interview with Davin Coburn (chief editor of Popular Mechanics). Charles Goyette isn't an out and out 9/11 Truther, but just plain common sense puts Davin on the back foot...!

Charles Goyette owns Davin Coburn from Popular Mechanics
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?

Last edited by dave52; 11-03-2008 at 11:26 AM.
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 11:59 AM   #3
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

It could be that Davin Coburn and Popular Mechanics have been ordered to make a debunking of the 911 attack.

I haven't researched it much and just did a quick check on the debunking of the steel. It was like, whoa! That was a shaky debunking. How unscientific can a debunking get?
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 12:10 PM   #4
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

With such a big disaster as WTC building collapsing and they didn't even investigate the steel to determine what temeratures were reached and why the construction broke down?

Instead we get a fuzzy debunking by Popular Mechanics? Why not hard facts by examining the steel at ground zero?
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 01:25 PM   #5
dangermouse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: West Cork, Ireland
Posts: 4,049
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
The Popular Mechanics hit piece has been proven to be just that, a hit piece.

Edit: Check out this radio interview with Davin Coburn (chief editor of Popular Mechanics). Charles Goyette isn't an out and out 9/11 Truther, but just plain common sense puts Davin on the back foot...!

Charles Goyette owns Davin Coburn from Popular Mechanics
hehehehe burned ....
__________________
They don't just hope for our ignorance, they depend on it... it's time to break that cycle!
dangermouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 01:38 PM   #6
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Instead we get a fuzzy debunking by Popular Mechanics? Why not hard facts by examining the steel at ground zero?
Because, had a proper forensic, scientific examination of the crime scene been undertaken, the official story would have been proven to be a lie. This would have been evident pretty quickly. But instead, everything was scrapped and shipped off as fast as possible.
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 01:56 PM   #7
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
Because, had a proper forensic, scientific examination of the crime scene been undertaken, the official story would have been proven to be a lie. This would have been evident pretty quickly. But instead, everything was scrapped and shipped off as fast as possible.
If the steel columns were chopped off by shape charges it would certainly have looked suspicious to those who did the examination.

They could fabricate some evidence, but then it would be difficult to explain why the Popular Mechanics debunking was so shaky if real hard facts exist.

Last edited by anders lindman; 11-03-2008 at 02:21 PM.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 02:06 PM   #8
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

You assume that NIST and all the other examiners were independant...?

There has never been a truely independant un-biased investigation of 9/11. That is why we ametures spend hours posting to forums...
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 02:51 PM   #9
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
You assume that NIST and all the other examiners were independant...?

There has never been a truely independant un-biased investigation of 9/11. That is why we ametures spend hours posting to forums...
I suspected that they were not independent, and would have been able to fabricate evidence but maybe it's difficult to fabricate evidence.

Another thing is that it would be interesting to know where the steel was shipped to. Propably to some companies in Asia. What companies? Who owns/controls those companies?
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 07:58 PM   #10
weston white
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 600
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Well that still does not even explain it assuming that is the case for several reasons, such as building are designed to support multiple times its designated load bearing weight so say at least 75% of the strength would need to be removed before collapse, albeit a sagging collapse would begin to occur, never would a global collapse just occur. Never mind the obvious facts that the temperatures did not reach that high as per the video evidence as well as the time frame in correlation with the burning properties of the jet fuel which can only reach up to 1200 degree Fahrenheit (in an ideal environment) and forget about the laws of thermal dynamics (for a review: and ).

This is an excerpt from a report I did:

“I feel that is extremely relevant and just as important to note is how human bodies are cremated. It takes a consistent temperature of between 1600-2000 degrees Fahrenheit (JP5 only burns at a maximum of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit and office and building décor and furniture can only reach a maximum core temperature of 400 degrees Fahrenheit during the first stage of combustion and up to a maximum core temperate of 900 degrees Fahrenheit during the final second stage of combustion, (the secondary stage works in two-parts; it begins initially at approximately 540 degrees Fahrenheit during its primary stage, after-which the temperature begins to climb towards 900 degrees Fahrenheit during the secondary stage at which point the burned material is in a charcoal form).” – http://defendindependence.org/OIF/9-11ARP.PDF

* To further clarify this combustion process can take up to eight hours (4-6 hours variance on average), respectively.
__________________
weston white is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 08:27 PM   #11
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by weston white View Post
Well that still does not even explain it assuming that is the case for several reasons, such as building are designed to support multiple times its designated load bearing weight so say at least 75% of the strength would need to be removed before collapse, albeit a sagging collapse would begin to occur, never would a global collapse just occur. Never mind the obvious facts that the temperatures did not reach that high as per the video evidence as well as the time frame in correlation with the burning properties of the jet fuel which can only reach up to 1200 degree Fahrenheit (in an ideal environment) and forget about the laws of thermal dynamics (for a review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_dynamics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire).

This is an excerpt from a report I did:

“I feel that is extremely relevant and just as important to note is how human bodies are cremated. It takes a consistent temperature of between 1600-2000 degrees Fahrenheit (JP5 only burns at a maximum of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit and office and building décor and furniture can only reach a maximum core temperature of 400 degrees Fahrenheit during the first stage of combustion and up to a maximum core temperate of 900 degrees Fahrenheit during the final second stage of combustion, (the secondary stage works in two-parts; it begins initially at approximately 540 degrees Fahrenheit during its primary stage, after-which the temperature begins to climb towards 900 degrees Fahrenheit during the secondary stage at which point the burned material is in a charcoal form).” – http://defendindependence.org/OIF/9-11ARP.PDF

* To further clarify this combustion process can take up to eight hours (4-6 hours variance on average), respectively.
Yes, the buildings must have been designed for the load of extreme hurricanes and for a century of aging if not more. Wouldn't like 10 times the strength have been needed for that? And the smoke that came out of the buildings was black and that indicates a low temperature. Plus steel is a very good heat conductor and the steel columns went down through the whole buildings.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 08:38 PM   #12
weston white
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 600
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Exactly, those are all very great points that are to be addressed! I do not know the load bearing specs though have read that building codes required ~3-4 time the designed static weight bearing load... though it would be much higher for such a massive building, or at least one would think when using common sense and figuring such as inevitable and unavoidable variables such as atmospheric/weather conditions, corrosion, and age into the equation.
__________________
weston white is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.