Very true.
And from everything we have learned, the impact and the subsequent fire could have caused the collapse of the two World Trade Center towers.
World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy
- Thread starter someguy1
- Start date
- Status
And from everything we have learned, the impact and the subsequent fire could have caused the collapse of the two World Trade Center towers.
I don't give a damn if you believe that you get to define The ISSUE.
The Twin Towers were designed to hold themselves up and withstand the wind long before 9/11. So accurate data on the buildings comes before any other issue.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That does not meet the minimum qualifications to be called a conspiracy. Notably, there's no mention of any conspiring.
No, I don't get to define the issue. The forum topic and the thread title do that. Both of them contain the word 'conspiracy'.
In your own words, what do you claim the conspiracy is, and what evidence do you have to support it?
Last edited:
psikeyhackr:
We're now 640 posts into this thread and you're yet to tell us whether you think there was a conspiracy to bring down the WTC - other than the one we all know about with Al Qaeda crashing planes into the buildings.
It is time for you tell us what you think happened, and to offer evidence for your belief, if you don't accept the "mainstream" explanation for the events of 9/11.
If you cannot or will not do that, I think you're done for this thread.
Please include a summary of your beliefs on this topic in your next post.
Thank you.
We're now 640 posts into this thread and you're yet to tell us whether you think there was a conspiracy to bring down the WTC - other than the one we all know about with Al Qaeda crashing planes into the buildings.
It is time for you tell us what you think happened, and to offer evidence for your belief, if you don't accept the "mainstream" explanation for the events of 9/11.
If you cannot or will not do that, I think you're done for this thread.
Please include a summary of your beliefs on this topic in your next post.
Thank you.
So neither Q nor PKH were able to do the basic math, so I will do it here. (Note that it's just algebra.)
Assumptions:
WTC is ~1350 feet high. Let's assume that the mass is centered 1/3 of the way down. (This is conservative; it's probably closer to the center.) So the center of mass is at 138 meters.
WTC towers weigh about 500,000 tons.
Now the buildings collapse. Let us assume that 99.9% of the energy goes into the shockwave, into mechanical destruction of concrete, lofting debris high in the air and plain old air friction. That gives us .1% of the energy to act on the metal - by bending and crushing it. That energy gets turned into heat.
We know that most of the "molten metal" seen is aluminum from the aircraft melting. But was there enough energy to deform and melt the steel beams locally?
Let's assume that all the steel starts out at 20C. (Again this is extremely conservative, since some of it was much hotter than that.) We have 679 million joules being applied to that metal. It, of course, does not act on it all equally. Where the steel remains intact, no energy is transferred. Where the metal is bent or crushed, it is applied. Let us further assume that one metric ton of the total steel was bent and/or crushed this way.
That much energy, using a standard .466 J/g C specific heat for the metal, would have raised its temperature to 1477 degrees C. The melting point of steel ranges from 1370-1540 degrees C.
So yes, even with those very conservative assumptions, there was enough energy to (locally) deform and melt pieces of the steel structure of the building.
Assumptions:
WTC is ~1350 feet high. Let's assume that the mass is centered 1/3 of the way down. (This is conservative; it's probably closer to the center.) So the center of mass is at 138 meters.
WTC towers weigh about 500,000 tons.
Now the buildings collapse. Let us assume that 99.9% of the energy goes into the shockwave, into mechanical destruction of concrete, lofting debris high in the air and plain old air friction. That gives us .1% of the energy to act on the metal - by bending and crushing it. That energy gets turned into heat.
We know that most of the "molten metal" seen is aluminum from the aircraft melting. But was there enough energy to deform and melt the steel beams locally?
Let's assume that all the steel starts out at 20C. (Again this is extremely conservative, since some of it was much hotter than that.) We have 679 million joules being applied to that metal. It, of course, does not act on it all equally. Where the steel remains intact, no energy is transferred. Where the metal is bent or crushed, it is applied. Let us further assume that one metric ton of the total steel was bent and/or crushed this way.
That much energy, using a standard .466 J/g C specific heat for the metal, would have raised its temperature to 1477 degrees C. The melting point of steel ranges from 1370-1540 degrees C.
So yes, even with those very conservative assumptions, there was enough energy to (locally) deform and melt pieces of the steel structure of the building.
You mean I have not said multiple times that I don't give a damn about conspiracies?
BELIEF is for MORONS! I decided I was an agnostic when I was 12 years old.
I am not even interested in poking the obvious holes in the Official Conspiracy Theory.
I STRONGLY SUSPECT that airliner impacts and fires could not destroy the towers and the way to figure that out is to know the initial conditions of the towers. They had to support their own weight and withstand the wind. I do not understand why even people who BELIEVE that airliners and fire could destroy the towers would have any objection to accurate data being readily available.
But this brings up the psychological bullshit!
If airliners and fire could not do it then how many people DON'T WANT TO KNOW, because I really don't care who was responsible.
As far as I am concerned all of the institutions that grant degrees in structural engineering and architecture have made themselves accomplices after the fact by not resolving the Twin Towers Affair. It seems they do not want the data either.
Tell me what you think destroyed the towers, then.
Why did the towers fall, if the airliner impacts and the subsequent fires and structural damage were not the catalyst for that?
(Do you believe that airplanes hit the buildings at all?)
You want me to make guesses on the basis of video without data?
The NIST recorded the deflection and oscillation of the South Tower at the 70th floor. I would conclude that something with a lot of momentum hit it. They have a graph of four minutes of damped oscillations.
But I find it difficult to understand how firefighters could climb to the 78th floor and report "isolated pockets of fire that can be knocked down with two lines." Then a few minutes later the top 29 stories suddenly tilt over which the NCSTAR1 report by the NIST says was "20 to 25 degrees".
I cannot comprehend why hundreds if not thousands of engineers and scientists have not been all over that like white on rice.
But no! I haven't even seen anyone else ask about the center of gravity.
I built a model and made a video to show mass and it's distribution affecting that behavior:
Last edited:
There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the impacts could have severely damaged the towers, and the additional damage from the resulting fire could have further weakened the structure to the point of collapse. Neither one by itself would have been sufficient; indeed, the buildings were designed to survive the impact of an aircraft. They were not designed to withstand both.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is semantic nonsense.
'To suspect' something without supporting evidence is synonymous with 'to believe'.
You believe there is a conspiracy, no matter how much you deny it.
Because, if you don't believe there's a conspiracy, then there is no reason to examine the incident beyond what we already know.
Look: The eruption of Krakatoa was never computer modeled, yet you have not been screaming for 20 years for a high def simulation of that.
Why not? Because you don't believe there's any conspiracy in the eruption - therefore (and follow me on this) - you are perfectly willing to accept what the first order evidence is without hoping there's a curtain that needs peaking behind.
Q: So what, exactly, makes you think there is a curtain to peak behind in the 9/11 disaster?
A: Because you believe there's a conspiracy involved.
Pure fantasy to imagine the entirely notional '0.1%' could have translated into what was multiply reliably observed , cited in my last post:
#630: https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/01...-no-evidence-of-high-temps-in-the-wtc-rubble/
,underground 'rivers' of flowing and pooled molten iron/steel (not aluminum), continuing for weeks.
I have more respect for the complexities of collapse actually involved, and what a host of competent eyewitnesses observed (molten STEEL mot aluminum), than to attempt something as simplistic and unrealistic as billvon's BS math.
In the Official Story, massive amounts of incendiaries were absent. Realistically denting, bending, and rarely, tearing or fracture, from steel beam-on-beam etc. collisions is the 'best' to expect. All the photos of above ground debris has the severed girders etc. looking mostly like a pile of spilled match sticks.
Localized melting in explosive or friction welding require extremes of collision velocities and sustained pressure respectively. Similarly for armor-piercing-projectile-armor collisions.
A perfectly parallel aligned on rails, end-on-end I-beams very high velocity collision, just might lead to quickly quenched localized welding. And then only if the colliding ends are freshly prepared oxidation free. Likely then quickly torn apart by recoil or, depending on beam lengths, from unstable compressive buckling. Other than that, forget it. Hypersonic collisions create melting, NOT low velocity random collisions as in WTC collapses.
It's up to billvon to back his wishful thinking scenario by citing any mainstream authority(s) whose studies have or would concur even very guardedly with such pure speculation.
Don't give up your day job! You're still Mr Vague on Vague Patrol. You claim there are holes in the official story, well duhh, that's what the thread is about and you are evading it. You claim some sort of something or other and don't specify what, you don't offer anything really.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That's OK. It doesn't matter whether you read my posts, you're trolling anyway. I'm writing for the benefit of everyone else, who sees you sticking your fingers in your ears as a matter of record.
Again, the rivers of molten metal were aluminum. That's been demonstrated time and time again. There was more than enough energy to melt LOCAL areas of iron.
There is no proof - none at all - that there were rivers of molten steel. (And no, a guess from a visiting firefighter is not proof.) So you fail - again.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No it isn't but nice try.
Without some competing theory with supporting evidence in its favour, the fall of the towers scenario already has been explained.
'I think this is fishy so I don't believe it' does not rise to the level of theory, let alone a competing one.
The failure is all your's. Knowing full well the nonsensical billvon 'math' i.e. wild conjecture, has zero support, from anyone who would matter - just yourself.
Ditto for that repetitive meme "it's aluminum not steel".
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It is not our challenge pass or fail.
The WTC towers collapsed due to collision by two commercial airliners, and there is exactly zero evidence that indicates a separate contributing cause.
"I don't understand it therefore it didn't happen" isn't evidence.
That's where it stood it in post 1 and that's still where it stands in post 658.
If you didn't even understand the math, that's pretty sad. It's about as simple as it gets.
No wonder you're a conspiracy theorist.
- Status