• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories

Talk radio host Michael Medved said that 9/11 truthers are
nutburgers. That pretty much settles it, right?
 
Talk radio host Michael Medved said that 9/11 truthers are
nutburgers. That pretty much settles it, right?

No. There are a small fraction of 911 'truthers' that ARE in fact nutburgers, ill-informed, gullible, hypnotized by disinfo, or some sort of combination... I'm not gonna try and lie about that (no-planers please stand up so we know who you are)

It would seem that there were just enough 'vocal' nutburgers out there that so many try to use that as a 'guilt by stereotype', but there are enough credible people out there that are simply bringing up those issues that beg 'difficult' questions surrounding 9-11...
 
Did you watch either of these videos?

Not yet, I cancelled internet at home and you tube doesn't work at work right now. I can't imagine how these two videos will be any different than the hundred others that I have watched though... but I will look when my you tube is working and take a look, you never know what you will find.
 
Disagree. Science doesn't care about opinions. Everyone has one of those too.


Disagree all you like, what she is talking about is not a scientific fact.
 
Disagree all you like, what she is talking about is not a scientific fact.

What Chanda said was that science is on the side of truth.
That is a true statement. That is a fact. Science is always
on the side of truth.

Science would not try to discourage anyone from seeking truth.
If there are facts which are not supported by evidence, Science
would welcome any inquiry.
 
guess that proves it, 25% of the population is retarded.

I mean come on ... you people really beleve this stuff?

You really think the administration would murder 2000+ people just to invade a country? If bush was cought doing that, he would be declared a traitor and perhaps executed.

I don't think he and the rest of the whitehouse staff would risk that to help their friends get rich.

There are better ways of getting rich .. like Oboma's stimiuls package
 
Not yet, I cancelled internet at home and you tube doesn't work at work right now. I can't imagine how these two videos will be any different than the hundred others that I have watched though... but I will look when my you tube is working and take a look, you never know what you will find.

Don't lose any sleep over it. The narrator sounds like he rode the short bus, or at the very least maybe had a bad stroke at some point. The video itself consists of roughly 95% misguided opinion, mixed with 5% BS.

Just to comment on a couple things though...

I'd like to see actual PROOF of the metal iron spheres, not some study done by dr Truther Jones. He could have sourced that dust from ANYWHERE.

I would like to see PROOF that this woman's amateur thermal camera is accurate at the kind of range that it was being used at.

11,000 gallons of jet fuel does not "all burn off instantly".
 
I'd like to see actual PROOF of the metal iron spheres, not some study done by dr Truther Jones. He could have sourced that dust from ANYWHERE.

I suppose finding some iron spheres would be like finding a needle in a hundred haystacks.

Just one more reason the crime scene should have been gone over before quick removal

I recall something in a speech to the effect that we are going to show the world how quickly americans can recover from catastrophe...

Wouldn't it have been procedure to look closer at at the evidence to determine if there wasn't more terrorists that helped with the attact by using bombs in the building, also to make sure there aren't still more accessories to this crime out there? Especially with the many, many witness accounts of other explosions live on the news?

I recall hearing this live on the radio when things were taking place and they were talking about the extra explosions and bombs in the buildings.
 
guess that proves it, 25% of the population is retarded.

I mean come on ... you people really beleve this stuff?

Depends what part specifically.

You really think the administration would murder 2000+ people just to invade a country?

Yes, and the administration will do it again if it's deemed as neciessary.

If bush was cought doing that, he would be declared a traitor and perhaps executed.

Just like his granddad could have been executed for supplying energy aid to both sides of WW2. The Bush's know that if the truth of their crimes come out, they would be hung in the street.

I don't think he and the rest of the whitehouse staff would risk that to help their friends get rich.

This is no longer about 'getting rich' this is about developing a monopoly of POWER and Control for the entire world. Yes, this is another way of saying world domination.

Consider this : The president is like the manager of 'Burger King' America. He is there to resolve issues with staff, production, and customer issues. Let's say you have a problem, you talk to the person at the counter, if they cannot resolve the issue it goes to a supervisor, and at worst you deal with a manager directly. They are all there to stop you from EVER running into the FRANCHISE OWNER. It's these franchise owners that are setting the plan, these are the people with the agenda... you might have seen the term 'new world order' on the news lately... if it requires a biological attack for the people to accept the agenda, then the franchise owners will arrange it... AS LONG AS THE AGENDA CONTINUES.

There are better ways of getting rich .. like Oboma's stimiuls package

Nice... too bad the only people getting rich off of his stimulus package are those that have already been rich for a long time.

I'd like to see actual PROOF of the metal iron spheres, not some study done by dr Truther Jones. He could have sourced that dust from ANYWHERE.

You mean proof that one of the women that supplied the sample of dust came from an appartment building a block awat from the WTC??

Another person that supplied dust had put his dust covered duffle bag into a plastic bag for months as evidence before supplying it for analysis.

Is there a basis for you accusation of the maipulation of this evidence??

I would like to see PROOF that this woman's amateur thermal camera is accurate at the kind of range that it was being used at.

That's simple, if not in that video, there is another where the model of camera is shown, you can check its accuracy at which ranges on the specifications page for that model.

11,000 gallons of jet fuel does not "all burn off instantly".
Right, but the initial fireball could have been in the 30-40% range of the vapours egniting. The rest would have pooled on the ground,
 
What Chanda said was that science is on the side of truth.
That is a true statement. That is a fact. Science is always
on the side of truth.

Science would not try to discourage anyone from seeking truth.
If there are facts which are not supported by evidence, Science
would welcome any inquiry.

Actually she said that science was on the side of the Truth Movement.
Not just on the side of Truth... ;)

So when you disagree with my assertion that her statement is an opinion...
Well, you can see the miscommunication? Can't you?

Of course science is about TRUTH. This is not in dispute. :2razz:
 
Don't lose any sleep over it.

Thanks... now I can go back to losing sleep over a different ridiculous challenge to common sense, like doughnuts are good for us.
 
Actually she said that science was on the side of the Truth Movement.
Not just on the side of Truth... ;)

So when you disagree with my assertion that her statement is an opinion...
Well, you can see the miscommunication? Can't you?

Of course science is about TRUTH. This is not in dispute. :2razz:

The truth movement is seeking the truth because the official story does not fit the available facts. And that's the truth.
 
The truth movement is seeking the truth because the official story does not fit the available facts. And that's the truth.

Perfect way to state it! How anyone can argue against this is beyond me? Unless of course it is someone with personal vested interests....or plain dumb!
 
The truth movement is seeking the truth because the official story does not fit the available facts. And that's the truth.

Maybe it would help if we took it one question and one step at a time. Most of the time, threads are long and bombarded with stuff that gets ignored. Like perhaps we should ask a simple question:

1) Were the fires in the WTC towers hot enough to melt steel?

The answers would be simple enough, really. A) Yes. B) No. C) I don't know, or, D) Yes with the help of thermate.

My answer would be D. I wonder what the other neigh sayers would say? Probably B, huh? Maybe we shall see... :2razz:
 
Maybe it would help if we took it one question and one step at a time. Most of the time, threads are long and bombarded with stuff that gets ignored. Like perhaps we should ask a simple question:

1) Were the fires in the WTC towers hot enough to melt steel?

The answers would be simple enough, really. A) Yes. B) No. C) I don't know, or, D) Yes with the help of thermate.

My answer would be D. I wonder what the other neigh sayers would say? Probably B, huh? Maybe we shall see... :2razz:

I can't believe I'm letting myself get dragged back into this ridiculousness, but it truly pains me to sit by and watch such horribly uninformed opinions thrown around as fact. Here:

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"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." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

So there you have it. The steel in the buildings did not MELT. However, it lost between 50-90% of its strength due to warping and sagging, which led to the collapse.

Fin.
 
I can't believe I'm letting myself get dragged back into this ridiculousness, but it truly pains me to sit by and watch such horribly uninformed opinions thrown around as fact. Here:



So there you have it. The steel in the buildings did not MELT. However, it lost between 50-90% of its strength due to warping and sagging, which led to the collapse.

Fin.

What about the USGS satalite ground temperature readings of ground zero well above the 1800f that is the highest temp jet fuel can burn in it's purest form?

What about the many firefighters stating that weeks after, the burried steel looked like an iron foundry?...(continued reaction of thermite?)

What about the videos showing white hot flames dripping off the side of the building?

What about the stories from prominant people of the melted steel at the base of each building?

What about building #7 that wasn't hit by a plane?
 
Last edited:
I can't believe I'm letting myself get dragged back into this ridiculousness, but it truly pains me to sit by and watch such horribly uninformed opinions thrown around as fact. Here:

NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

There is no evidence that pockets of fire hit 1832 degrees F. It is purely speculation of NIST's part, and contradicts NIST's own fire temperature simulations.
 
What about the USGS satalite ground temperature readings of ground zero well above the 1800f that is the highest temp jet fuel can burn in it's purest form?

The steel at ground zero was heavily oxidized. The oxidation of iron by air and steam are exothermic. The pile kept the heat for these reactions trapped which led to the high=temperature pockets.

What about the many firefighters stating that weeks after, the burried steel looked like an iron foundry?...(continued reaction of thermite?)

Or the continued reaction of iron and steam. The pile was continually sprayed down with water.
 
There is no evidence that pockets of fire hit 1832 degrees F. It is purely speculation of NIST's part, and contradicts NIST's own fire temperature simulations.

I saw a site that stated that the USGS satellite ground temp readings for ground zero were 3500f which was burried in the debris that was acting like a thermos. I looked a little but didn't locate it.

If this is true than this would be absolute proof of high accelerents(explosives) in the WTC buildings
 
Last edited:
The steel at ground zero was heavily oxidized. The oxidation of iron by air and steam are exothermic. The pile kept the heat for these reactions trapped which led to the high=temperature pockets.



Or the continued reaction of iron and steam. The pile was continually sprayed down with water.

This sounds reasonable...just wondering about the USGS readings I saw in the past? Disinfo?
 
Back
Top Bottom