| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: Lee Hamilton - Superheated jet fuel melted WTC steel |
 |
|
TONS OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT LEE HAMILTON'S SUPERHEATED JET FUEL THEORY
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html
When asked about the 9/11 collapse, Lee Hamilton responds:
| Quote: | | Don’t take our word on that: the engineers and the architects have studied this thing in extraordinary detail, and they can tell you precisely what caused the collapse of those buildings. What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse. There’s a powerful lot of evidence to sustain that point of view, including the pictures of the airplanes flying into the building. |
Super-heated Jet Fuel? Sounds like something from Futurama.
So I've done some research into this remarkable stuff and er...
I got 54 google hits for "superheated jet fuel" and 46 for "super heated jet fuel" 21 google hits for "super-heated jet fuel" (although google claims a larger number initially) - mainly all from truther sites but also used by some debunkers.
In fact it is such a well understood subject that er... it's no good I can't keep up this charade. He made it up, didn't he? Either that or a NIST engineer told him this "fact" and he never checked. Either way, how can you believe anyone who spout out such tosh?
==============================================
In fact the use of "super-heated jet fuel" is a sure way of spotting a shill.
Just look at this dreadful hit piece against Rosie O'Donell on the now deleted web page (accessible from google cache)
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:fTLqO-Yf1bgJ:www.aolvideoblog.com /2007/03/30/r/2+%22super-heated+jet+fuel%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=uk &client=firefox-a
| Quote: | | 17. Metal melting? Not necessary. Basic physics took the towers down. On a normal day the towers sway back and forth a given number of feet with wind as does any skyscraper. They are designed for this but when a plane hits at several hundred miles per hour a little bit of friction on the girders would be caused by the extra sway of the towers. Add to this super heated jet fuel and basic gravity does the rest. The metal didn't need to melt. Anyone who has ever bent metal has noted the frictional heat that is caused. |
If the Physics is so basic why resort to imaginary concepts such as "super-heated jet fuel" - Apparently, the poster introduces another concept too: it was the wind as well. How does gravity make buildings explode? Smash bodies into tiny fragments and send them 600 yards onto the top of adjoining buildings? Or vaporise them entirely: there is no DNA for a 1000 or so of the 9/11 victims. For a third of all victims there is not a trace!
How does "Basic Phyics" explain that?
Last edited by scienceplease on Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will comment on the statement issued by Reuters about the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7 before it happened:
"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."
This is not an adequate explanation as it does not explain how the original local news story got wrong such an unlikely event as the collapse of a steel tower from minor fires and collateral damage. It merely transfers the blame from the BBC and Reuters to some unnamed news source, but leaves the issues of how the story arose and what its source was still unsettled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
A quote (minor edits and my bold and italics) from the BBC blog:
| Quote: | Stranglely enough I got the quote that Lee Hamilton was directing the superheated jet fuel myth to WTC7 from the article[snip]:
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html
As [Lee Hamilton] says he is no expert. That's fine. But doesn't that just mean We Need A New Investigation - chaired by someone who does have some basic science in his education! You need someone who can actually validate "expert" claims, not just say "Sure, "super-heated jet fuel", so that explains it. Let's move on..." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | super heated jet fuel |
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sycorax82
Minor Poster
Joined: 12 Aug 2007
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Soon they'll be telling us New York is actually named Metropolis and Silverstein is in fact Lex Luthor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a good reply from someone:
| 496. At 09:29am on 07 Aug 2008, ynda20 wrote: | Roly,
You may have missed my earlier point about Lee Hamilton's assertion that WTC7 (not just WTC1 and WTC2) was brought down by fires from "super-heated jet fuel".
As Red Dwarf's Kryton would say in, this is a really great theory except for four things:
a) WTC7 wasn't hit by aircraft and so wasn't affected by jet fuel, super-heated or otherwise
b) There is no such thing as "super-heated jet fuel"!!!
I know that technically that's only two things but each error is so big that they count for two! |
Well, there can be "super-heated jet fuel" at which it would be at (or above) the flash point temperature for that hydrocarbon fuel (Kerosene) but the fact remains that WTC7 was not hit by an aircraft! What's more, even if the jet fuel that didn't exist, was "super heated" it would still not have enough energy to melt nor appreciably weaken the steel so as to bring the building down into it's own footprint.
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
8. At 12:53pm on 02 Jul 2008, starNancyL wrote:
| Quote: | | Oh for heaven's sake. I lived 6 blocks from the WTC and first of all, building 7 was a 47 story building, less than half the height of the towers. Second, it's face had been heavily damaged up to the 18th floor by falling debris from the towers; fires had started all over the lower floors, but there was no water pressure, and the firefighters couldn't control the fire, as they could not control the enormous amount of fires burning all over the remains of the WTC complex. Creaking had been heard coming from the building and it came down around 5:20 P.M. or so, meaning the fires had been burning all day. There's no mystery here.” |
Oh for heaven’s sake Nancy, if the cause of the collapse was due to damage on one side (or more damage on one side than other sides), it wouldn’t have neatly fallen into its own footprint. Commonsense alone should tell us that if anything, it would have toppled over. The same applies with the fires which were not evenly distributed.
As for the BBC, they must think that we are all stupid. Authority does not always tell the truth but truth is (or should be) the authority. Do your own research people and think for yourselves.
..........
What's the bet that my comments do not get posted?
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| truthseeker john wrote: |
Well, there can be "super-heated jet fuel" at which it would be at (or above) the flash point temperature for that hydrocarbon fuel (Kerosene) ... |
Hi Truthseeker John, Thanks for the post. I started the thread by describing that no such thing as "super-heated jet fuel" has ever been identified except by Lee Hamilton. Where is the phenomenon of kerosene being heated above its flash point that you refer to been identified within an air crash and what properties does it possess? How was it measured at 9/11 and what particular effect did it have (besides sounding really bad) on the twin towers?
Lee Hamilton appears to make "super-heated jet fuel" as the explanation for the towers explosion. He then referred to WTC7 implying that WTC7 was also affected by "superheated jet fuel" despite it not being hit by a plane.
The point being made on the BBC blog was that Lee Hamilton unquestioning acceptance of such an unscientific approach to the destruction mechanisms meant that he was not qualified to discuss the tower destruction events or indeed lead the 9/11 Commission investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scienceplease wrote: | | Lee Hamilton appears to make "super-heated jet fuel" as the explanation for the towers explosion. He then referred to WTC7 implying that WTC7 was also affected by "superheated jet fuel" despite it not being hit by a plane. |
yes but....maybe when one of the planes hit the other towers a large dollop of jetfuel splashed onto wtc7 and ignited it - thus resulting inevitably in total collapse! 
see? it's easily explained if you simply suspend reality and use your imagination. 
_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | scienceplease wrote: | | Lee Hamilton appears to make "super-heated jet fuel" as the explanation for the towers explosion. He then referred to WTC7 implying that WTC7 was also affected by "superheated jet fuel" despite it not being hit by a plane. |
yes but....maybe when one of the planes hit the other towers a large dollop of jetfuel splashed onto wtc7 and ignited it - thus resulting inevitably in total collapse!
see? it's easily explained if you simply suspend reality and use your imagination. |
Yeah, gruts. I am always trying to use my imagination. So the fuel flew in a large dollop... At what point did it become superheated?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
er....hmmm....yes, well....uh....l'm afraid that my imagination doesn't seem to stretch that far....
_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scienceplease wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: |
Well, there can be "super-heated jet fuel" at which it would be at (or above) the flash point temperature for that hydrocarbon fuel (Kerosene) ... |
Hi Truthseeker John, Thanks for the post. I started the thread by describing that no such thing as "super-heated jet fuel" has ever been identified except by Lee Hamilton. Where is the phenomenon of kerosene being heated above its flash point that you refer to been identified within an air crash and what properties does it possess? |
I didn't say it had been identified, I said... | Quote: | | Well, there can be "super-heated jet fuel" at which it would be at (or above) the flash point temperature for that hydrocarbon fuel (Kerosene) but the fact remains that WTC7 was not hit by an aircraft! What's more, even if the jet fuel that didn't exist, was "super heated" it would still not have enough energy to melt nor appreciably weaken the steel so as to bring the building down into it's own footprint. |
... Both you and I agree (and anyone with any sense at all) that WTC7 was not hit by a plane and therefore, 'superheated' jet fuel does not even come into it.
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scienceplease wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: |
Well, there can be "super-heated jet fuel" at which it would be at (or above) the flash point temperature for that hydrocarbon fuel (Kerosene) ... |
Hi Truthseeker John, Thanks for the post. I started the thread by describing that no such thing as "super-heated jet fuel" has ever been identified except by Lee Hamilton. Where is the phenomenon of kerosene being heated above its flash point that you refer to been identified within an air crash and what properties does it possess? How was it measured at 9/11 and what particular effect did it have (besides sounding really bad) on the twin towers?
Lee Hamilton appears to make "super-heated jet fuel" as the explanation for the towers explosion. He then referred to WTC7 implying that WTC7 was also affected by "superheated jet fuel" despite it not being hit by a plane.
The point being made on the BBC blog was that Lee Hamilton unquestioning acceptance of such an unscientific approach to the destruction mechanisms meant that he was not qualified to discuss the tower destruction events or indeed lead the 9/11 Commission investigation. |
Please see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile/?userid=13384919
Do we agree?
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
