Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Political Issues
Created on: April 16, 2008
Submitted for your approval: A sort of deconstruction of 911...and it's conspiracy madness. My source? The findings of The institute of technology and standards. Not a blog, not a flimsy documentary (see "Loose change") that offers nothing but sound bytes and rampant logic bending, but the actual, scientifically backed findings, researched by structural engineers, and physicists(to name a few.)See where I'm going already? CONSIDER THE SOURCE. Are so-called "truthers" so driven by agenda they will largely ignore science and reason? This might be important...more on that later. First, the meat and potatoes.
Truther point 1: "Jet fuel (JP4/5) does not burn hot enough to melt steel building supports. This is very true. The FACT is,nothing melted. That was the conclusion of multiple investigators. The "melt" idea was just a theory, one of many ideas put forth during the confusion of that time. What happened was this: A plane flew into the upper structure. The collision damaged the building's fire proofing. A fire started. According to the on scene fire dept, it topped out at about 1100 degrees. Steel melts at about 2600 degrees. No melting...must be a conspiracy right? Wrong. See steel is just iron, smelted with carbon. (metallurgy 101). When it is subjected to intense heat, even a non-melting heat, it undergoes a process called "Carbon Embrittlement" The fire separates the amalgamated iron-carbon, weakening the metal, reducing it's load bearing capacity by over 50%. Anyone who has done even simple construction, will tell you a structures frame is a big puzzle. Load is evenly distributed throughout the entire building. When one piece is broken or compromised, it causes stress and collapse. The fire didn't have to melt steel to cause structural failure. Moving on.
Truther point 2: "What of the visual evidence, and witness claims of secondary explosions in the buildings?" What of them? Even auto-fires have "Blowouts" Fire heats air, air expands rapidly. It's got to go somewhere. BOOM! out the windows. A skyscraper is a pressurized structure, with an average differential of +2-3 psi. Not a big number? A 100 sq. inch window has 2 to 300 lb. of pressure pushing against it under optimal conditions. Along comes a fire, and superheated, expanding air. That 2 to 300 lb. increases exponentially. Couple that with the collapse of the floors above, falling down, pushing more pressure down into as of yet unaffected floors. The result? Failure and "blowouts" A ridiculously common
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
The conspiracy theories about September 11
by Trey Adams
While it may be easy to pass some people off as a "conspiracy nut" for their skepticism towards 9/11, I'm under the impression
It appears that the public has swallowed the political pill, which Bush, and the media has administered. Did two terrorist
by Shannon Lane
September 11, 2001 is covered and washed in conspiracy theories. I have known that the media did not tell us everything.
by Eric Youmans
On September 11, 2001, 19 foreigners armed only with their cunning, their burning hatred of freedom and some box-cutters
by T88
After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, there were many questions asked. Who had done this? What did we do
View All Articles on: The conspiracy theories about September 11
Helium Debate
Cast your vote!
Click for your side.