WTC Collapses

Maybe Headspin won't respond but I will. Maybe they simply didn't take the internet into account when they did it. Seriously, many people now believe that Pearl Harbor was a 'let it happen' event but by now, Roosevelt is dead; he really has nothing to lose. It happened so long ago that (I would argue) they felt they could do something similar; only this time they decided to go further and actually put the explosives in themselves. There's evidence that the -first- attack on the World Trade Center was orchestrated by U.S. government agents. There's evidence that the Oklahoma building had explosives within it and McVeigh's fertilizer wasn't the main reason for the amount of damage. The same people, such as Gene Corley, who figures so prominently in the coverup, I mean "investigation" of the WTC collapses, were there as well. The evidence is there all there to those who have the patience to look for it.

leopold, we may have had our arguments in the past, but I commend the fact that you are still here debating. It can be a rough road and perhaps you'll stop tomorrow. But you're fairly civil and I hope you'll agree that the more the 2 sides of this debate this the more likely it is that we will finally come to agree on what really happened on that awful day. Surely you agree that if there's even a small chance that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, it's worth investigating. Because I think you can agree that no one should have to go through that again and to prevent these types of things, the real perpetrators should be brought to justice, not the patsies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Headspin hasn't responded in a bit, thought I'd step up to the plate, with a link:
http://www.oilempire.us/911why.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The WTC steel


This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 1082 in this thread.

I'm saying that there is little evidence that much fireproofing was taken off due to the plane and ensuing jet fuel initiated fires. As I've also mentioned, UL/NIST did some tests with steel that had essentially no fireproofing as well as no fireproofing at all; in the essentially no fireproofing one, it didn't collapse; Tony has stated that NIST claimed that the no fireproofing one was a calibration test; they never released the results.

It seems you still don't understand that concrete is much more susceptible to collapse by fire then steel. The Madrid Tower suffered a partial collapse of upper perimeter concrete columns, probably because they were concrete and could suffer spalling when heated, something that steel doesn't go through. Concrete also doesn't spread the heat load like steel does.

When?

Steven Jones has dealt with that argument already.

9/11 Research has conclusively dealt with the differences between the Madrid Tower and the WTC buildings and has also pointed out the gradual way in which the Windsor tower in Madrid fell here.

9/11 Research has highlighted the differences between the McCormick place warehouse and the WTC buildings here.

Other then the alleged collapses via fire of the WTC buildings, the only skyscraper that suffered a partial collapse due to fire is the Windsor tower. The reason is that skyscrapers are genearlly fairly sturdy structures and fires genearlly don't have what it takes to bring them down.

It was plenty for fires. But the engineers of the WTC complex knew that explosives could take it down. On the subject of explosives, it's not the first time the WTC complex was attacked; there is definitely evidence that points to the possibility that the WTC bombing was an inside job as well, as this video makes clear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-2TbafIK6Y

There is no evidence that any of the floors collapsed due to fire. There is plenty of evidence that explosives did it though.

The perimeter columns were mainly concrete, with only a little bit of steel reinforcement. Had they been the stronger 100% steel columns of the WTC buildings, I sincerely doubt the Madrid tower would have suffered even the partial, gradual collapse that it suffered.

Sigh. It has many points. One of them is that concrete is more susceptible to collapse from fire then steel is as I just mentioned.

Yes, it does. It makes 2 very good points relating to the weaknesses and strengths of steel and concrete when subjected to heat. Here they are again:
* Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
* Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

nevermind . . .

 

So you have one physicist on your side, and all the rest on mine. Yes, I can see how your one physicist can sway the argument.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why the emphasis on engineers? Gee, I don't know, maybe I'd like to hear from people who would know about this stuff, as opposed to the clerk at the Quickie Mart.

Actually, you can't see the "finer details" of the collapse on film. The vast majority of the collapse films is from handheld cameras, while the rest is generally from news cameras quite a distance from the buildings.

And don't compare the pseudoscience being conducted here to Stephen Hawking.

But the problem here is that you can't ascertain that it was physically impossible for the top of the building to destroy the bottom, because it is possible. You're thinking of it as if the top of the building, in one shot, destroyed the rest of the building, but that's not how it worked. The top of the building fell into the bottom, and as it fell, each floor collapsed and hit the one beneath it.

What's really happened here is that you, and others like you, have fallen in love the idea of a conspiracy, so you choose to believe the junk science offered by laymen who don't know the first thing about architecture or engineering or physics.

There's no evidence to support the use of explosives, though.

Yes, there is, actually. The standard MO is that no matter how many throngs of experts agree, the conspiracy theorist will believe that he or she knows something that nobody else knows. They'll think that there's something being hidden from the public. They change facts to support their belief, rather than the other way around. No matter what anyone says, you will believe that the towers were brought down by explosives. That isn't research, that's religion.

I know what he said, I read it.

Where do you get that from? Where is the evidence that this isn't exactly how a building reacts when hit by large airplanes in that manner? Think about it: Two planes hit two towers, both of which fell in similar ways. So the evidence says that when a tower is hit by an airplane in that manner, that is what happens.

Both planes didn't have to hit the same exact place. What they did do that was similar was hitting the towers high. They hit high intentionally because they had already tried destroying the building from below. The bomb in the basement didn't work, remember?

And that's what happens when a building pancakes. The upper floors fell into the lower floors, causing a cascade effect. And please, if you watch the videos, the towers didn't fall straight down. The tops of the towers both tilted to the side as they fell, due to where the planes hit, because the structural support for the impact sites were either destroyed or heavily damaged, and the fires weakened the steel to the point where it eventually gave way.

Ha! That's hysterical! You want evidence? Please. You don't want evidence, you want someone to blindly agree with your conspiracy theory. All evidence--all evidence--points to the towers falling due to the damage of impact and the ensuing fires.

OK: World Trade Center One, and World Trade Center Two. Isn't that evidence enough? Or how about thermal expansion? Are you aware that heat makes metal expand? Are you aware that when metal expands, it weakens? After the impacts had destroyed some of the supports, it put more of a burden on the remaining supports. The fires then heated the supports, causing them to expand and weaken. At this point, with over-burdened supports expanding and weakening due to the heat of the fires, it's only a matter of time before they start to give. And that's how you have the tops collapsing back into the building.

Well, the towers fell. How about showing some evidence that the top didn't destroy the bottom?

What I'm failing to see here is how the burden of proof is on me. Where is your evidence that it didn't, other than your desire for our government to have committed the worst atrocity on American soil in our nation's history?

But just so I'm not accused of hiding, read the NIST report.

Those flights were chosen because they would have the most fuel in them.

Obviously you've never spent a minute of your life looking at the evidence, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to turn the burden of proof on me. Have you even read the official report? Did you read the Popular Mechanics study? Have you read the NIST report? I'm guessing you haven't.


[/quote]OK. Yes, there are some who are (not on our side) convinced that the government were involved, who also state that planes did not hit the buildings, or that mini nukes were involved etc. There are not just two angles, two sides going at it here. Let's just concentrate on the collapse and the evidence it provides.[/quote]

OK...well, how about the sheer amount of explosives that would required for such a demolition? You'd need at least 100 lbs of explosives to destroy one column. First, where were the explosions? Aside from the rumbling heard as the tower fell, there were no loud bangs that would match the sound of an explosion on that level. How about the fact that someone would have had to install all of those explosives with nobody noticing. When would they have had access to the building with no one around? There was one point the weekend prior to 9/11 when one half of one tower was shut down, but that's only one half of one tower.

While we're on the subject, what about whistleblowers? Why hasn't one single person come forward to admit that there was a conspiracy? For this to have been accomplished, the government would have required dozens, maybe hundreds of people. Just imagine the manpower it would have taken to rig the buildings, provided that it would have been possible with no one seeing or hearing them do it (which nobody did). We can't keep prison camps secret, we can't keep presidential oral sex secret, so what makes anyone think we would have been able to keep this a secret? Believe it or not, there are good Americans working in the government, so where are they? Where are the actual patriots stepping up to say what happened?

And the way the twin towers fell does not match a controlled demolition. Building 7 did resemble a controlled demolition, but not 1 or 2.

That really is funny, dude. You don't have one single shred of evidence to support your crackpot theory, and yet you have totally bought the idea that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. But I need to provide evidence? The evidence is there, you just choose to ignore it.

 

.
How many physicists is that?

How many physicists haven't said SHIT about this?

Any high school kid that has passed a physics course should be able to find problems with this on the basis of conservations of momentum.

But WAIT!!! We can't do any accurate calculations because we don't have accurate data on the DISTRIBUTION OF MASS. I don't hear Steven Jones pointing that out. How do you build a 110 story, 1360 foot building without figuring out where to put how much steel? Why worry about who has what degree in physics when grade school kids should comprehend something is missing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWN7T5ryljU

It is like a lot of people's idea os science is selecting what SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY to believe. SCIENCE is understanding things for yourself, at least comprehending what information is necessary to solve the problem. How else do you know when the EXPERTS are bullshitting you???

Actually it does look like there is something wrong with the Truth Movement that this nonsense is dragging out so long. The families of 9/11 victims should be trying to file a class action suit against all of the engineering schools over this shit. Those schools are supposed to be competent at training people to design skyscrapers. But they can't raise the issue of the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers in SEVEN YEARS???

On the matter of mass distribution of the towers the NIST says this:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-5D Ceilings.pdf page 74

But that is from a report about suspended ceilings which I don't even understand why they did. But they don't say anything that clear on the subject anywhere else.

This debating crap is turning into personality ego games instead of really trying to understand a solution to a problem which should have been solved in less than a year. But NOooo, this is about counting physicists on which side even when they say nothing. I will agree that their saying nothing is an indictment against them on an issue of this magnitude.

psik

 

.
This is the brilliant physics we get on this subject. Decide what you want to believe on the basis of the destruction of the towers then rationalize backwards from there. How are we supposed to make these conclusions when we don't even know the tons of steel on the levels in the impact zone? Why doesn't the NIST just test a floor section without fireproofing in a furnace?

World Trade Center One, and World Trade Center Two. Isn't that evidence enough?

It is enough for someone that can BELIEVE STUPID BULLSHIT and not ask obvious questions.

Where is a table with trust worthy data on distribution of steel and concrete and why don't we have it after SEVEN YEARS and why aren't people on both sides demanding it?

DUH, that is so difficult to understand. :wtf:

psik

 

Then I hate to say this, but according to your own logic you aren't yet even in high school yet. Or perhaps you decided to skip it in favor of getting a job, I don't know, I don't want to judge your situation. But the words are yours, not mine, that a high school kid should be able to understand the simple physics of this, and yet you can't seem to grasp it for yourself. Here you are, completely failing to understand that one you knock out a chunk of the support structure of a building, you put more stress on the rest of it that wasn't designed to hold. On top of that, you have fire weakening the already over-burdened support steel, and you have a recipe for failure. And yet you can't seem to grasp this, for whatever reason.

You're very young, which is made apparent by your outrage at someone demonstrating how you are wrong. You've been not only provided evidence by the official WTC report, the NIST report, and the Popular Mechanics article, but you've also just been provided sound logic in my own posts, and your reaction is blind rage. You have yet to learn how to swallow your humble pie. You don't know how to change your view without feeling personally insulted by someone proving you wrong.

And to knock people for openly choosing what to believe is ridiculous, especially coming from you, who choose to believe that the towers fell due to controlled demolition. You base that decision on nothing more than a desire to believe in a conspiracy theory. All of the evidence points to the planes and fires being the cause of the failure, but you've made a conscious decision to ignore it in favor of junk science and fantasy. You've just stated your primary reasoning, perhaps without even realizing it, by saying that you believe the experts are lying. Where do you get off saying that? What, other than a juvenile desire to believe the most outrageous story, reason do you have to doubt three different investigations?

It is solved. There is no mystery here. To be fair to those who were charged with investigating this, they had to sift through tons of scrap metal and explain how it fell. But they did an excellent job. The "truthers" have dragged this nonsense out with their junk science and strawmen. But we already know what happened. Oh, so they don't know how much the buildings swayed from the impact? Oh well. They know what caused the failure, which is the point.

Because we don't need it. Nobody had a chance to study the building after the impact before it fell. We had to work from heaps of scrap metal. All of the concrete was pulverized, and the buildings completely fallen. What we do know is what I've already stated. There's no guesswork to be done here.

 

the only unknown as far as weight distribution goes is the furnishings on each floor.
the core box columns dimensions have been published, the spandrel (perimeter) columns have been published, the amount of concrete on each floor has been published, the construction details of the floor plan has been published.

the only conceivable reason psikeyhackr doesn't used the 22 ton figure for the spandrel columns, in my opinion, is because it will not support the controlled demolition theory.

 

I've never heard that before Scott. Can you send me so links so I can read more about nature of that conspiracy? (conspiracy site links ok

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Something new we can talk about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mitch

 

.
First of all you can find plenty of sources claiming the building was designed to withstand airliner hits.

Next, You cannot compute how much of the kinetic energy of the plane did structural damage without knowing how much shook the building. And that cannot be computed without distribution of mass.

Then even if the plane and fires could cause the top of the north tower to come down the conservation of momentum analysis cannot be done without distribution of mass. I notice our physics graduate student who said my math was correct has disappeared. LOL So how the top portion could destroy 89 stories in less than 18 seconds hasn't been explained and can't be without accurate data. So why hasn't all of the EXPERTS on all sides been pointing this out for SEVEN YEARS?

There is definitely a lot I can't grasp. How so many people can't figure out the obvious for one.

WTC Impact Model

Fall of Physics

911 Mysteries

psik

 

.
And your links to the weights of the 12 different types of perimeter wall panels are where?

Here is the data on one panel:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

Now I don't know how many there were of that type. So let's see you provide links to the weights of the other 11 types and tell us the number of each.

Do something besides say, that's published, that's published, that's published, that's published, that's published, that's published, that's published, ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

psik

 

You are correct sir. According to the Fema report:

Back in the 40's a B-25 Mitchell (Mac fact: Dad was a co-pilot in one over Italy..and my full name is "Mitchell"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) got lost in the fog and crashed into the Empire State Building. The designers of the WTC considered this incident and when designing the towers considered a similar scenario with one of the largest planes of that day, the 707, in a "lost in the fog" situation.

 

You seem to be saying that the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of 707s, which were about the same as the impacts of the actual 767s that hit them. Are you claiming that they didn't account for the fires they'd initiate? Because if you're not claiming something like that, you would seem to be saying that something other then the jets and the fires they initiated were responsible for the complete and sudden collapses of the twin towers.

 

Note the speeds. The planes that hit the towers were traveling at much faster speeds...almost 3 times. The 767 is slightly larger, but was traveling 2-3 times faster...roughly doubling or tripling the impact force.

Psi likes to talk physics..I was just trying to oblige him with some numbers to work with.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

okay, i will.
why not ask tony to help you with the interpolation, he claims to be a structural engineer doesn't he?

 

the government didn't need to destroy those buildings for the "excuse" of going to war. flying planes into them would have been sufficient.

if i remember correctly the US went to war in iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, not because of 9/11.

 

.
It is not a matter of liking, it is a matter of what is necessary to solve the problem.

I oscillate between being totally pissed off and laughing at this bullshit.

Comparing the plane that hit the ESB to the WTC is totally pointless. A B-25 was 12 tons, just the fuel that was in the airlines was 34 tons. What kind of similarity is that? I didn't even have to look it up. I researched it long ago.

So it is the mass distribution in the towers that is important to the analysis now not a comparison to an incident from 60 years earlier. The 70th floor of the south tower moved 12 inches. We don't even know how much mass was between the 81st floor where the plane hit and the 70th floor where the measurement was made. Why couldn't the NIST figure out that the mass in horizontal sections was important and put it in their 10,000 page report?

psik

 

Laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Here's a good video on the subject that I just put in my latest response to one of shaman_'s old posts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-2TbafIK6Y

I've seen more as well and could probably dig it up if you'd like to see more...

Well, it's more of a prequel to 9/11, but I suppose it is something we haven't talked about

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Actually, the 767s were going slower then the cruising speed of 707; 9/11 Research makes a powerful case that the buildings were fully capable of handling the impacts of the 767s in its article called Towers' Design Parameters.

Aw

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!