Edna Cintron, our Face of Truth (RIP)

[solgrabber]

I am posting this for all who believe that the fires in the WTC towers brought the buildings down because of the "high temperatures" they supposedly generated.

The video shows EDNA CINTRON who climbed into the impact zone where the plane crashed waiving to the helicopters and letting them know the fires where out. This is what they dont want to show you on CNN.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4837634583766795751


There is nothing to figure out is there?

If that fire was 1500F she would not be there serving as a testiment that everything you were told by your governments, media and evil doers was a lie.

I challenge anyone to prove Edna wrong, she is the miracle that the Truh Movement is based upon.

I will be her voice and all the others (3000) that were murdered that day, will you do the same?

 

[solgrabber]

No one willing to view the video above and prove the fires were above 1500F?

 

[Ditto Much]

You are not willing to compromise on anything for the sake of discussion so you lost me in the other thread. If we have no give and take then its just noise not discussion.

 

[atbell]

Oh, I've got some "proof" that the fires were that hot, hot enough to melt steel even!

Give me a sec.

 

[solgrabber]

You are not willing to compromise on anything for the sake of discussion so you lost me in the other thread. If we have no give and take then its just noise not discussion.

Well prove how this woman is standing there where its supposed to be 1500F and stop ignoring it.

 

[Ditto Much]

it wan't 1500 degrees where she was standing might have been 3 floors down on the other side of the building. Might have been where the trusses actually gave way. But not where she was.

Nothing unique

 

[solgrabber]

it wan't 1500 degrees where she was standing might have been 3 floors down on the other side of the building. Might have been where the trusses actually gave way. But not where she was.

Nothing unique

Nothing Unique? Let me remind you what a 1500F fire looks like.

Three floors down and she would have burned into ashes in seconds.

 

[atbell]

Here is a quote from another thread, with out the accompanying pictures.

Molten Metal shortly after the collapse which is evident because it's dark from the dust clouds.

I believe the video 9/11 Revisited has the clean up crew on tape clearly showing they were pulling up molten steel from under it all as well.

I'm not sure if this is a complete contradiction or not? Do contradictions work across threads or can you take one side on one thread and then another side on the other thread?

Can you see why this pulls apart your video? You claim that molten metal is captured on film flowing down the side of the building. You claim that thermal images taken after the fall "prove" that there was molten metal in the crash sites. And finally you claim that temperatures were NOT high enough to melt metal because there is some random lady in the a whole in the building.

To be honest, I don't care much about melting metal. I don't think it was much of a factor in the toppling of the twin towers. I don't know enough about wtc 7 yet to say anything about it.

And to comment of the "proof" of the video. Are you nuts!?! That "person" was a full 20-30 pixels and looked an awful lot like the surrounding wreckage. How did any one come up with the idea that these pixels were a person, let alone begin to claim that they were a specific person? That's a horrible video and I would recommend you never use that link again to try and prove anything, it really weakens any other argument you present.

This is one of the reasons your arguments are being picked apart. You have not presented your case in anything near an organized manner, you throw out tidbits of weak "proof" that don't stand up to scrutiny, and instead of arguing against criticism you back up your first argument with further links and clips of equally weak material.

As for your "proof" of the physics behind the fall, you sent me a link to another posting board. It's long but I'll cruise through it. You can bet that if I don't see any calculus you're going to get one hell of another scathing post from me. ... and if you want to start a thread about why calculus is a conspiracy I'll be glad to join you in it.

 

[solgrabber]

Atbell the video is a stream that does not work well I agree. The high qulaity version will be out shortly and you can download the first version of 9/11 Eyewitness which shows many others standing in thiese impact zones. These people are clearly visible, were else do you think the might have jumped from when choosing their lives?

As for your scrutiny bear this is mind please. I will save you the trouble of looking it up yourself.

Kerosene burns at about 825 degrees Celsius or 1517 degrees Fahrenheit under optimal conditions.

The simple facts of temperatures:

* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

These are the FACTS.

Prove me wrong any of you.

 

[solgrabber]

Oh and your "pancake theory" of the collapse has a HUGE problem with it.

Buildings do NOT fall at freefall speed if pancaking. They fell in 13 seconds.

WAY TOO FAST

Back to the drawing board.

 

[atbell]

From the link that was sent to prove the physics side of things.
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

The math was correct for an object in free fall, as far as I could tell. There was no calculation about the conservation of energy that was stated as a prime cause about why the theory was wrong.

The problems begin with the assumptions made about the effects of drag on the acceleration due to gravetiy and the resistance offered by the building as it fell. There are also aspects of the fall that are negated, such as the exact timing of the fall, the fact that the planes struck lower then the exact top of the building, and the complete lack of any calculations regarding how much energy was expended on the movement of air (drag) or on the dislodging of the lower floors as the mass of debris fell.

What does this mean?

Yes I agree that an object in free fall, in a vacuum would take the stated 9.2 seconds.

Yes I agree that the resistance of air would have an effect on the fall time.

Yes I agree that the impact with floors below would have had an effect on the fall time.

No, I do not agree that the fall time of the towers is clear as there is a margin of error in estimating the start of the fall and the end of the fall based on simple videos.

No, I do not agree that the calculations should be done from the top of the tower as the floors that began to fall were not at the top of the tower.

No, I do not agree that the speculation about vague notions of energy conservation is enough "proof" to say definitively that the building must have been brought down by some "other" means.

As it stands the margins of error in the assumed calculations are far to wide to even begin to discredit the standing accepted theory.

If you are interested in moving the opinion forward that the towers fell based on some other theory you have to build a better model for the energy conservation of the fall. Then the assumptions used in the model could be debated in a logical way (things like the mass of each floor, the structural integrity of each floor, the resistance of air, etc)

Until that time no amount of pictures, testimonials, video clips, sound clips, or appeals to emotions is going to change my mind.

As one of the posters on your other board put it so nicely:

"But that is your untrained viewpoint.

I don't have any knowledge about that either, so can't form an opinion either way. Only thing I can go on when I have a gap in knowledge is to listen to people who claim to be experts.

The problem is there doesn't seem to be a single structural engineer that is saying that it was impossible. Not even from within the middle east or any of america's unfriendly countries."

Unfortunately, I am a trained view point, I can offer an opinion.

 

[solgrabber]

No, I do not agree that the fall time of the towers is clear as there is a margin of error in estimating the start of the fall and the end of the fall based on simple videos.

Do you have a hard time starting to count when you see a tower collapsing or something?

No, I do not agree that the calculations should be done from the top of the tower as the floors that began to fall were not at the top of the tower.

So your saying it should have fallen faster then?

No, I do not agree that the speculation about vague notions of energy conservation is enough "proof" to say definitively that the building must have been brought down by some "other" means.

Well obviously something brought the towers down in freefall speed because again your pancake theory which is used on the 9/11 Omission report is wrong.

If you are interested in moving the opinion forward that the towers fell based on some other theory you have to build a better model for the energy conservation of the fall. Then the assumptions used in the model could be debated in a logical way (things like the mass of each floor, the structural integrity of each floor, the resistance of air, etc)

You still did not bother to watch 9/11 Eyewitness have you? For one there is no resistence of air that is why the fell at freefall speed just like in a vacum.

I don't have any knowledge about that either, so can't form an opinion either way. Only thing I can go on when I have a gap in knowledge is to listen to people who claim to be experts.

The problem is there doesn't seem to be a single structural engineer that is saying that it was impossible. Not even from within the middle east or any of america's unfriendly countries."

Unfortunately, I am a trained view point, I can offer an opinion.

There are experts who did the calculations themselves, you dont have to be a structural engineer to figure it out.

I might be wrong here but dont you think the first structural engineer that goes against the official story is going to have someone knocking on their door pretty quickly before it hits the shelves?

Maybe thats why the physics professionals decided to do this on their own.

I am not a doctor but If I see someones head cut off I can tell you they are not going to make it also.

Unfortunately, I am a trained view point, I can offer an opinion.

Yes just an opinion not based on any FACTS you were supposed to get me.

Have anything on the the fire yet? I posted the melting points of iron and structural steel for you to look at not ignore it.

Thanks.

 

[solgrabber]

Here are those steel trusses that melted away. :O

Look pretty solid to me.

 

[atbell]

Here are those steel trusses that melted away. :O

Look pretty solid to me.

You ignored all of my comments in exactly the same way that right wing TV hosts ignore those things brought up by their guests.

You failed to acknowledge the fact that I included a quote in which you argued FOR the presence of molten metal in another thread.

You show a picture of random metal from an unknown web site and offer this a "proof" of your argument.

You disregarded the fact that I disputed the calculations (or lack there of) which you had earlier hailed as "proof" of the failings of the current popular theory explaining how the towers collapsed.

I feel I am justified in no longer paying attention to anything that you write because so much of it has failed to stand up to scrutiny by myself or others.

Sorry.

 

[solgrabber]

The random molten metal you speak of is a picture showing the thermite reaction taking place. This was used to "cut" the metal so to say.

The molten metal you are speaking of was burning for months after the attack and thermal hotspots are on record.

See the link below.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

Really it sounds like you have given up trying to come up with anything because you cant. I have posted the facts and you have posted nothing but your opinion anyone can see this. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you want to be proven wrong again.

BTW what happened to your proving the heat of the fire wrong? cant get past the facts can you?

I will be waiting to prove you wrong again or anyone for that matter, have a good day.