# WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

## How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

18 vote(s)
43.9%

0 vote(s)
0.0%

9 vote(s)
22.0%

2 vote(s)
4.9%
5. ### People keep flogging a dead horse!

12 vote(s)
29.3%
Not open for further replies.
1. ### scott3xBannedBanned

Messages:
3,785
I did qualify that 'definitive' with an 'i believe'- I acknowledge that many remain unconvinced but I attribute this to a lack of knowledge concerning the relevant facts

.

There was:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

I believe you are referring to the collapse of the top of the south tower. That fact is indeed noted by physicist Steven Jones. Apparently in that one instance, a piece of the tower didn't collapse in sync with everything else. Steven Jones noted something quite interesting despite that fact, however:
******************************
Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then — and this I’m still puzzling over — this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)

So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its neglect by studies funded by the US government.

******************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones/

3. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
51,799
Aluminothermic reactions are exothermic chemical reactions in which aluminum is oxidized while an oxide of another metal is reduced. Although high temperatures are required to initiate such reactions, they are easily self-sustaining once started due to the heat they generate. The most common example of an aluminothermic reaction is thermite, in which powdered aluminum reacts with an iron oxide. Because aluminum has a greater affinity for oxygen than iron, oxygen is transferred from the iron oxide to the aluminum, releasing a great deal of energy and leaving behind molten iron and aluminum oxide. ​

Do you realize what this means? The building is steel, the aircraft is aluminum, pulverized to a fine mist upon impact, with the fires giving the heat needed to start the reaction, which quickly released enormous heat, melting the steel that carried the building's load.

5. ### scott3xBannedBanned

Messages:
3,785
I have heard this argument before, but from what I gather, even NIST doesn't support it. Instead, NIST desperately clings to the notion that the planes and fires did it alone, tweaking its computer models in an attempt to get the buildings to collapse based on these criteria alone. Despite all their tweaking, even they don't try to simulate how the fires could have actually collapsed the buildings, instead leaving the computer simulation at the 'poised for collapse' stage.

I'm glad that you are considering that aluminothermic reactions did take place, however. The next step is simply in persuading you that those reactions were initiated by thermate that was placed within the building instead of from aluminum. Put simply, the planes didn't leave debris on all the floors and left none at all in WTC 7. Another thing is that steel isn't the same thing as iron oxide. Personally, I would like to know more about how high a temperature is required to initiate a thermite reaction. But the fact there are so few people who believe that aluminothermic reactions could have been induced without the use of thermite/nanothermite leads me to believe that explosives were indeed placed.

7. ### scott3xBannedBanned

Messages:
3,785
This is in response to the beginning of KennyJC's post that was in the 'there can be only one!' 9/11 thread. His post is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090162&postcount=2363

The following is my response.

Ofcourse, the fires came nowhere near getting the steel to 10% of its original strength, as Kevin Ryan makes quite clear, even if the fires had reached 2000F, which even NIST doesn't believe the fires could have reached. Here is Kevinn Ryan's famous letter to Frank Gayle, who headed the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project at the time, that is, on 11/11/2004:
*******************************
Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
*******************************
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

8. ### shaman_Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,467
Leslie Robertson makes it clear

“The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.”

The towers did withstand the impact. They stayed up for an hour or so and thousands of people were able to evacuate.

WTC was hit by debris from one of the tallest buildings in the world. The fires burned for seven hours. As demonstrated, fire is capable of collapsing steel structures.

That’s what a building looks like when the bottom floors fail. The collapse started near the bottom but not quite at the bottom. If you watch controlled demolitions you will hear the charges going off before the collapse starts. It also didn’t collapse perfectly as it damaged nearby buildings when it fell. So no it wasn't the same as a controlled demolition.

But you are ignoring that a controlled demolition takes a lot of time a planning to pull off, the fires burnt for many hours not affecting the supposed explosives and what it pretty much the final nail - that the firefighters all cleared out because they thought it was going to collapse due to the damage it had received. There is no mystery here.

Repeating over and over that no plane hit WTC and “it looks like a controlled demolition!!” is a foolish argument which will only appeal to the gullible.

No I’m referring to the list of engineers who wrote articles in peer reviewed papers supporting the collapse. They are more qualified to talk of such matters than a theologian and crackpot physics professor whose field was cold fusion.

So where is their research? If they are genuinely in that field they know the process. Why aren’t they writing papers for engineering magazines? Perhaps they are fake names, not really behind it, retired, dead, not very good, who knows either way the list on it’s own is meaningless. Unless you are gullible and desperate to reinforce you conspiracy fantasy.

As pointed out to you some of those engineering professionals are very dodgy. They have padded out that list of ‘engineering professionals’ with irrelevant people like software developers, chemists, electrical engineers and an ‘urban activist’ ?

Ha because he uses the sub heading “Tentative Conclusions” you are trying to imply that he didn’t really believe it or something. It is a desperate ploy.

This is the man who said this "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff,"

"Those are lightweight buildings," "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm

No he doesn’t seem sure at all there. You will of course ignore this and keep mining through his quotes.

He resigned because he did not want to sign a disclosure contract. The disclosure contract was to protect the owners of the buildings from having the findings used against them in a lawsuit

We were probably all a little surprised that WTC7 collapsed. Then again, every building in the WTC complex collapsed or partially collapsed. However something unexpected doesn’t equal conspiracy. Well it might in the minds of those desperately looking for a conspiracy to make their lives more interesting.

Yes gravity can be a bitch.

Yes but they are fools who ignore all the conclusive evidence that ruins the conspiracy. You just blindly believe everything they say.

Explosives explode, they blast and cause shockwaves usually accompanied by flashes of light and deafening bangs. They don’t just magically turn concrete to dust. A 110 story building collapsing to the top certainly might….

Oh lordy your heroes are dim witted. The strength of a structure does not scale proportionately to its size. Its more than a ‘a bit different’. You cannot demonstrate how a building of 200 000 tons of concrete and steel behaves with an erector set.

For the most part Scott I try to be polite in all discussions in sciforums. There are times though when I am going to have to call it as I see it. The evidence regularly presented by the truthers is pitiful.

While we are making requests I would politely ask that you actually digest some of the debunking presented to you. Don't just forget the parts you don't like.

9. ### scott3xBannedBanned

Messages:
3,785
I find it hard to believe that they would have accounted for the planes but not the fires that would ensue. I'm not alone in that suspicion either. In any case, Kevin Ryan makes it clear that the fires should have had a negligible effect on the buildings, as he made clear in his letter to NIST:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24

10. ### shaman_Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,467
I work in IT and can tell you that all companies now have a disaster recover plan. All the full backups are sent offsite regularly. This was a well-established practice even in 2001. Some companies may not have had a plan then, which I find hard very hard to believe, but anyway it was still well known then that the critical information can usually be recovered. The data on some hard drives were recovered from the wreckage so collapsing buildings isn’t a perfect way to destroy them anyway.

So was the loss of data/paperwork really a major issue for these companies? Was it worth the expense of the completely implausible super conspiracy? Stretches credibility a little don't you think? I'm sure there were better targets nearby which were not targeted.

Larry Silverstein only got $4.6 billion in insurance money, but rebuilding WTC7 cost$6.3 billion.

Last edited: Nov 15, 2008
11. ### scott3xBannedBanned

Messages:
3,785
The twin towers were closer to other buildings and yet, even though some of them were severely scorched, no other building but WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint.

A warehouse steel structure, ok. But never before or after 9/11 have steel framed high rises collapsed due to fire alone.

12. ### shaman_Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,467
We have been through this several times. Ryan bases that letter on the belief that the steel didn't reach temperatures over 250C. This is blatantly wrong and you even agreed. Stop posting the same irrelevant crap over and over.

13. ### shaman_Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,467
There are photos that clearly show the top stories of WTC1 colliding with WTC7. Had it been a controlled demolition and a symmetrical collapse it would not have happened. But all the buildings in the WTC complex were so damaged that they partially collapsed and/or had to be destroyed.

As mentioned WTC7 didn't quite collapse into its own footprint as it damaged the surrounding buildings.

That is an inane statement that only appeals to the gullible. The basic principles that led to the collapse have happened to other steel framed buildings. You can't just declare these things irrelevant because the building was different.

Anyway the steel supports on the Madrid tower did collapse due to fire. It stayed up due to its concrete core.

767s colliding full speed into buildings among the tallest in the world hasn't happened since either. There were lots of firsts that day.

Messages:
3,785
15. ### KennyJCRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,936
You’re right; a 10 story building is nothing like a steel framed high rise building. It’s more surprising to me that it would pancake so quickly as it is far lighter than what we saw at the WTC, therefore less kinetic energy.

No steel framed skyscraper has collapsed simply because violent fires are rare on such buildings. Truthers can only point to several examples, and even in one of their examples, a large amount of the building collapsed due to it being constructed of steel. The rest of the building survived most thanks to it’s concrete core.

No serious fire has ever occurred in a building that shared fundamental design elements seen in the WTC.

Tons of explosions going off would uniformly smash the surrounding windows and probably deafen some in lower Manhattan. As it happens these “tons of explosives” were silent when you consider that bombs are typically heard for miles.
Look, if you’re going to say these are explosive squibs, then what kind of bomb explodes slowly? A fart bomb?
What the fuck are you smoking? Just because most of what you saw was dust, does not mean that everything that is falling is dust. Just tell that to the recovery folk who far from simply having to hoover stuff up, spent years removing actual solid building-type things.

Watch any building collapse whether it be controlled or accidental; they produce tremendous amounts of dust. 10 story apartment building appeared to have its concrete completely disintegrated in mid-air as it fell. It’s not bombs that cause these pulverizations of concrete. In any case, the majority of concrete that was used in the WTC was very thin, and thus, very easily broken down.

EXPLOSIVES DO NOT EJECT TONS OF STEEL HUNDREDS OF FEET.

Any explosives that can do this would create more than a little rumble and vibrations.

Actually, I said that it was obviously false as images from ground zero showed that the windows at the top of the buildings were not smashed, but windows at the bottom of the building were smashed.
Logic dictates that debris smashed the windows below. Since “blast waves” would have hit the top of these buildings, then how come only windows at the bottom of the buildings were smashed?
The fact that some debris did fall off to the side is due to the fact that tower was not falling at free fall speed. If the tower was collapsing at free fall speed, all the debris would have gone straight down. But from watching the collapse, you see loose columns at the top being held up by the slow collapse, and following the path of least resistance fell off to the side and it’s momentum continued in an outward direction. As it fell near 1,000, the drift carried it to other buildings.
The part in bold just made me laugh. How the fuck do you know what nanothermite can do compared to conventional explosions? And again, even if this mystical substance does do as you say, where are the ear piercing explosions?
The fact is that the steel core was not obliterated. It remained in humungous chunks and was so difficult to remove from ground zero that it had to be cut into smaller sections. This prompted fools like Steven Jones to think that the beams had been cut during the collapse rather than after.

Except that’s not what Steven Jones says, is it?

Steven Jones says that because he found sodium, barium, aluminum etc. in the WTC dust, that this is a thermate signature. True that these elements may be in thermate, but it is probably in every skyscraper in existence.

16. ### psikeyhackrValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,020
ROFLMAO

You have gotta be kiddin' me.

I have done a search of that 100+ page thread. I found a little over a dozen mentions of conservation of momentum but the only mathematical description of it is the one I posted. What does the SCI in sciforum mean?

That is why I suggested this "thought experiment".
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2079638&postcount=2125

What information is necessary to test it in a computer simulation? That test could obviate all discussion of plane impact and fire damage.

m1 is the mass of the falling top portion of the tower. v1 is the velocity at which it would hit the lower intact portion, in this case 44 mph or 64.5 ft/sec. m2 is the mass of one level of that lower portion which has a velocity of ZERO. So the velocity of the combined masses after the mash up will be v3 = m1*v1/(m1 + m2). So v3 is going to be smaller than v1. THE FALLING MASS WILL BE SLOWED DOWN BY MASS ALONE. That does not count the energy lost to crush each level.

But this brings up another equation:

K = m * v^2/2

That is the Kinetic energy of a moving mass. But since velocity is squared reducing the velocity has a larger effect than increasing the mass. It turns out that the conservation of momentum would cause each stage of the collapse to lose so much velocity that there is a net decrease in kinetic energy even though the mass increased. But that energy is necessary to bend and break the steel to make this collapse continue. I don't know how to compute the energy necessary to crush one level of the tower and how the amount of steel affects that computation. I haven't seen it on the net.

Consequently debating this without knowing the quantity of steel and concrete on every level makes no sense. The world renowned EXPERTS at the NIST had to know that for years. So why are they claiming the collapse was inevitable and the towers came down so fast because the buildings were 70% air by volume?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

That is 15 tons of air per level by the way. It is totally absurd that PBS let someone talk that trash but then they do get money from the government.

Is insane worse than really DUMB?

psik

17. ### scott3xBannedBanned

Messages:
3,785
Laugh

. Well, a few people here have mentioned that they are, indeed, scientists, although I'm not sure if there are actually any who deal much with the conservation of momentum..

You know, I think I actually understood your argument now, laugh

. It seems to me that you're worrying too much about the amount of concrete; whatever the amount, the buildings simply couldn't have come down at that speed by any other means then controlled demolition, where, far from the top floors crushing the lower floors, the lower floors were already falling by the time the top floors reached them (thus the clear squibs ahead of the fall, to get things moving before the top actually hit it).

I think it's along the same lines as the one I posted earlier:
http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html

I can't say I understand all of it, but I surmised the above conclusion that I made from it.

18. ### psikeyhackrValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,020
That should be obvious but how many people stop listening as soon as you mention controlled demolition?

Regardless of what brought the buildings down they had to hold themselves up for 28 years and withstand the wind. So a person should not need a PhD in physics and a masters in structural engineering to know the designers had to figure out how much steel and concrete to put where. So regardless what anyone BELIEVES brought the buildings down EVERYONE should think it peculiar that no official source can tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers after SEVEN YEARS.

I spent two weeks after 9/11 thinking about what an airliner could do to a skyscraper. At the time I didn't know anything about the tube in a tube structure of the building but I concluded there was no way a NORMAL airliner could have done all of that. But I figured it was not my problem and it would get resolved eventually.

I didn't get into an argument about this on the internet with anyone until some time in 2006. By then the NCSTAR1 report was out and people were claiming that explained everything. So I downloaded that and burned it to DVD but I was not about to try and read 10,000 pages. So I started searching it for what I regarded as the necessary information to solve the problem on the basis of my understanding of the physics. I went to college for electrical engineering and my pledge father was an architect. We could see the Sears Tower being constructed from campus at the time so there was lots of talk about skyscrapers.

I have searched the NCSTAR1 report dozens of times. I cannot find the total amount of concrete specified. Various sources on the net specify anywhere from 90,000 tons to 425,000 cubic yards for both towers which would be at least 280,000 tons per building.

Now the distribution of mass of both steel and concrete are of primary importance for two reasons. When the airliner impacted the tower two things happened. The plane punched a hole in the building doing structural damage and the plane pushed the building off center. The NIST report says the south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor and that was 130 feet below the center of impact. The kinetic energy of the plane can be calculated rather easily but how much energy did structural damage and how much shook the building which oscillated for FOUR MINUTES. The distribution of MASS MUST BE KNOWN to compute that energy. That same distribution of mass is relevant to analyzing the collapse. The steel and concrete would behave differently so they must be separate. It is the steel that gave the building the spring to oscillate not the concrete. But the concrete acted as a weight on the spring.

So after SEVEN YEARS the really peculiar thing is that all of the engineering schools aren't demanding that info and explaining to the public its importance. It is like the engineering schools are accomplices after the fact.

And the public is supposed to be a bunch of LAYMEN kept ignorant but BELIEVING THE WORD from on high.

The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the destruction of the WTC. What kind of electronic computers did they have back then? A problem this simple should not have dragged on this long. Look at how much more powerful home computers have become just since 2001. This is just strange psychological bullshit of people not wanting the simple information that would force them to the logical conclusion that they don't want to accept.

But then they want to just throw around the term "conspiracy theorist" and accuse other people of psychological aberrations. Steel, concrete and physics don't give a damn about psychology.

psik

Last edited: Nov 16, 2008
19. ### KennyJCRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,936
Yes, when everything is interconnected.

20. ### MacGyver1968Fixin' Shit that Ain't BrokeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,028
and not hit by large airplanes flying 500 mph.

21. ### MacGyver1968Fixin' Shit that Ain't BrokeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,028
Something another SF member said that I thought was funny:

22. ### scott3xBannedBanned

Messages:
3,785
If they stop listening at the term controlled demolition, do you honestly think they're going to listen to your treatises on steel and concrete? As exhibit A, I present to you the responses to your latest post here from the official story believers.

In point of fact, I have seen that people here -do- listen beyond the term 'controlled demolition', but when it comes to a little math, all bets are off.

So simply sticking to the fact that the buildings simply couldn't come down as fast as they did regardless of how much steel or concrete was in them is, I think, enough.

As an aside, I think it'd be great if you could find out how much steel and concrete was used. I just think that that type of an issue is something best discussed with mechanics and engineers, not here

23. ### scott3xBannedBanned

Messages:
3,785
True, true. Clearly, psykey doesn't understand that a plane hitting a building has the capacity to get a building to self destruct, demolition style