WTC Collapses

**~~John99~~** · 02-01-09, 03:47 PM

"I told you the tons you can convert that to pounds if you want."

I cannot make it any clearer.

38,000 l of fuel

If you cant figure out what i am saying then this whole thread is a big waste of time.

**MacGyver1968** · 02-01-09, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Explain the upper block accelerating at the rate of gravity for the first 100 feet of it's fall. That is equivalent to eight stories.

The Con Edison substation was two stories tall and there were deep trusses from the central core out to the perimeter columns spanning over the substation. This had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7 and the NIST didn't even try to go there.

Tony,

My knowledge of the construction details of WTC 7 is much less than WTC 1 and 2. So until I do a little more research, I can't comment on it's construction. It just didn't make sense to me that if the insiders rigged the WTC7 for demo, why did they wait so long to initiate the charges?

I'm not asking you to do my research for me, but do you know what the "official story" cause of the WTC7 was? (ok..maybe I am.

)

**Stryder** · 02-01-09, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Tony,

My knowledge of the construction details of WTC 7 is much less than WTC 1 and 2. So until I do a little more research, I can't comment on it's construction. It just didn't make sense to me that if the insiders rigged the WTC7 for demo, why did they wait so long to initiate the charges?

I'm not asking you to do my research for me, but do you know what the "official story" cause of the WTC7 was? (ok..maybe I am.

)

Looking at sites on the topic, it was stated that WTC7 had structural damage and a Fire that burned without any firefighting. Coupled with the fact that it was in proximity of WTC1 and WTC2 collapse which would of generated a localised shockwave.

I still say it's a dead horse being flogged.

**Headspin** · 02-01-09, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

It just didn't make sense to me that if the insiders rigged the WTC7 for demo, why did they wait so long to initiate the charges?

Who knows? no-one can know what is in the mind of others, you can only speculate and come up with an infiinty of answers.

you presume that everything went perfect to plan. maybe flight 93 that crashed in shankesville was intended to crash into wtc7. maybe something unforseen disrupted an earlier planned demolition, barry jennings reported an explosion inside wtc7, maybe the demo just failed, or something went off too early. maybe they planned to do it at 5:20pm when the news was going to cover something else which was aborted. there are lots of speculative maybes here that are not worth much.

I'm not asking you to do my research for me, but do you know what the "official story" cause of the WTC7 was? (ok..maybe I am.

)

"move along nothing to see" is basically the official story.

**Tony Szamboti** · 02-01-09, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

.
I told you the tons you can convert that to pounds if you want. I prefer tons because it puts things into perspective relative to the steel. The towers averaged 862 tons of steel per level.

What is 34 tons of kerosene going to do to 862 tons of steel?

That is one of the reasons we need to know the steel on every level. Presumably the levels in the impact zone had less than 862 tons. But how much less?

psik

I am sure you realize 34 tons of the jet fuel did not even make it into the buildings let alone stay on one floor. FEMA did an estimate on the fuel distribution and NIST felt it was fine and used it. Someone did a short five page paper about this and what you are saying and it is published at the Journal of 911 Studies. The direct link is here

http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...sWTCTowers.pdf

**psikeyhackr** · 02-01-09, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by John99

"I told you the tons you can convert that to pounds if you want."

I cannot make it any clearer.

38,000 l of fuel

If you cant figure out what i am saying then this whole thread is a big waste of time.

.
You can do liters, I'm so impressed.

Does kerosene burn hotter in liters? Excuse me, Jet Fuel.

psik

**psikeyhackr** · 02-01-09, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I am sure you realize 34 tons of the jet fuel did not even make it into the buildings let alone stay on one floor. FEMA did an estimate on the fuel distribution and NIST felt it was fine and used it. Someone did a short five page paper about this and what you are saying and it is published at the Journal of 911 Studies.

.
This is why I suggest that simulation with the 60 foot gap. If the top 16 stories cannot crush 89 even if allowed to build up that much speed then all of these details become irrelevant. They would have no choice but to look for another explanation for the building coming down because the plane could not possibly have done it. But that simulation would require reasonably accurate info on mass distribution by type which should never have been difficult to get anyway. To not have it after SEVEN YEARS is astonishingly ridiculous.

psik

**~~John99~~** · 02-01-09, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

.
You can do liters, I'm so impressed.

Does kerosene burn hotter in liters? Excuse me, Jet Fuel.

psik

I could care less about impressing you. You needed a road map to figure that out and i even gave a link and wrote 10,000 U.S gallons equal what? the l means what? STILL, both you and Tony were clueless. Very telling. Clearly you discuss things that are beyond your ability to understand them so dont come off like an arrogant scholar. FOS, that is what you are.

**~~John99~~** · 02-01-09, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Stryder

Looking at sites on the topic, it was stated that WTC7 had structural damage and a Fire that burned without any firefighting. Coupled with the fact that it was in proximity of WTC1 and WTC2 collapse which would of generated a localised shockwave.

I still say it's a dead horse being flogged.

The interesting thing is that there would be absolutely no reason to demolish that building. The toofers say 'well there was records in there or incriminating documents....blah, blah, blah' but if that was the case, and of course there would be documents that are considered sensitive but the right people would have been sent in and removed them. Very simple procedure, much simpler than blowing a building up for the hell of it.

**psikeyhackr** · 02-01-09, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by John99

I could care less about impressing you. You needed a road map to figure that out and i even gave a link and wrote 10,000 U.S gallons equal what? the l means what? STILL, both you and Tony were clueless. Very telling. Clearly you discuss things that are beyond your ability to understand them so dont come off like an arrogant scholar. FOS, that is what you are.

.
Yeah, we don't think in metric and off the top of my head I don't recall ever seeing that number used in reference to the quantity fuel in two years. So you can make a big deal of pseudo-intellectual trivia and everyone is supposed to be IMPRESSED. It changes the physics of NOTHING. It is only a system of measurement.

The Google search statistics on it are:

about 78,800 for +wtc +fuel +10000

about 2,400 for +wtc +fuel +38000

I am NOT a scholar. Scholars are people who make things unnecessarily complicated to show how smart they are. Since the people who design skyscrapers must make decisions about the distribution of steel in order for tall buildings to hold themselves up I do find it curious that the scholars aren't making a big deal about not having that information from an OFFICIAL SOURCE in SEVEN YEARS.

psik

**Tony Szamboti** · 02-01-09, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by John99

"I told you the tons you can convert that to pounds if you want."

I cannot make it any clearer.

38,000 l of fuel

If you cant figure out what i am saying then this whole thread is a big waste of time.

So you meant liters and 38,000 liters = 10,000 U.S gallons = 68,750 lbs. All of the reports talk in gallons, lbs., or cubic feet. I haven't seen it referred to in liters. Not that you can't but it would have been clearer if you would have written the word liters rather than use it's abbreviation since it is not used often in the United States, and to be sure people understood that you weren't talking lbs. The fact that the 10,000 gallons also weighs approximately 68,000 lbs. makes it easy to have misunderstood.

Now that we agree on how much fuel the aircraft had on them, I would hope you understand that the fuel that made it into the building burned off in minutes and was not a factor in anything other than igniting office fires. NIST was forced to admit this, but I wonder how many people know it.

**~~John99~~** · 02-01-09, 07:11 PM

yeah....SURE. That is how i, and everyone else i know, write it and when referring to liquids i never had a problem with people not understanding the standard and accepted abbreviation. Never have i come across this problem accept when dealing with laypeople.

**Tony Szamboti** · 02-01-09, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by John99

yeah....SURE. That is how i, and everyone else i know, write it and when referring to liquids i never had a problem with people not understanding the standard and accepted abbreviation. Never have i come across this problem accept when dealing with laypeople.

For some reason I have a feeling that you are looking for any little thing to pick on, possibly because your arguments for the present government story on the collapses of the towers don't seem to be holding up too well.

Could I be right?

**~~John99~~** · 02-01-09, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

For some reason I have a feeling that you are looking for any little thing to pick on, possibly because your arguments for the present government story on the collapses of the towers don't seem to be holding up too well.

Could I be right?

no, you are not right. in fact i really think you are deluded.

an engineer should have been able to understand it and i found that perplexing.

but i am not making an issue of it because psikeyhacker is the one who is bringing it up. as long as i know how to convert gallons to liters then that is good enough for me.

**Tony Szamboti** · 02-01-09, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by John99

no, you are not right. in fact i really think you are deluded.

an engineer should have been able to understand it and i found that perplexing.

but i am not making an issue of it because psikeyhacker is the one who is bringing it up. as long as i know how to convert gallons to liters then that is good enough for me.

It really does sound like you want to pick on a trivial misunderstanding due to your use of a rarely used abbreviation in this country. I am sorry your arguments for the present official story on the tower collapses aren't holding up, but you really shouldn't lower yourself to personal attacks.

**MacGyver1968** · 02-01-09, 07:48 PM

Damn...your right Styder...we are beating the hell out of dead horses..while I have used this thread to gain knowledge...looking up the facts to disprove "unconventional ideas...i think it's time to lay down the law.

Single topic trolling should be inforced.

**~~John99~~** · 02-01-09, 07:55 PM

Tony,

personal attacks? to me it seems like every time you story get shot full of holes you and scott both cry about personal attacks. this is becoming sop for the both of you and the official story is what did happen. if you cant understand it or there are other reasons then i cannot help you with that.

10,000 US gallons equals 38,000 l then what else could i possibly referring to? When i worked as an engineer we had to know this.

**psikeyhackr** · 02-01-09, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by John99

10,000 US gallons equals 38,000 l then what else could i possibly referring to? When i worked as an engineer we had to know this.

.
The Google search statistics on it are:

about 78,800 for +wtc +fuel +10000

about 2,400 for +wtc +fuel +38000

about 1,490 for +wtc +fuel +38000 +10000

It doesn't look like too many had liters only.

You need something trivial to make a big deal about because you have nothing of significance to explain how a <200 ton airliner could cause a >400,000 ton building to collapse in <2 hours. So you resort to ego games instead of physics.

So if you worked as an engineer why aren't explaining how the top of the north tower overcame the conservation of momentum to bring the building down in <18 seconds? Why concern yourself with trivia?

psik

**psikeyhackr** · 02-01-09, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Damn...your right Styder...we are beating the hell out of dead horses..while I have used this thread to gain knowledge...looking up the facts to disprove "unconventional ideas...i think it's time to lay down the law.

Single topic trolling should be inforced.

.
Yes, the conservation of momentum is very unconventional.

At least among scholars on this planet.

psik

**MacGyver1968** · 02-01-09, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

.
Yes, the conservation of momentum is very unconventional.

At least among scholars on this planet.

psik

Conservation of momentum is a conventional idea...your interpretation of conservation of momentum is what is controversial....just because you use conventional terms doesn't make your argument unconventional. You couldn't find your own ass with both hands and a map.