Page 3 of 133 FirstFirst 12345671353103 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 3318
  1. #51
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    I have a theory of my own:

    Conspiranuts generally suffer from low self esteem. This is what they do to make it seem like they have more status, and I mean that in the primate pecking-order kind of way, than they actually do.

    That is part of what makes them so rabid and dishonest when it comes to actually presenting "evidence". If the evidence is wrong then so is their self-image as oppressed underdogs, rebels, and anti-heros.
    This makes sense, since the official story is a conspiracy theory without scientific proof, still, I wouldn't dare generalize people based solely on their thoughts on 911.

  2. #52
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    This makes sense, since the official story is a conspiracy theory without scientific proof, still, I wouldn't dare generalize people based solely on their thoughts on 911.
    The official story (NIST) offers a lot of scientific proof.

    I would be willing to bet that you have never read it.

  3. #53
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    This makes sense, since the official story is a conspiracy theory without scientific proof, still, I wouldn't dare generalize people based solely on their thoughts on 911.
    I would.

    In general this has been my experience. That's why you are something of an anomoly to me. From what I have seen, you are too smart for this crap.

    That is what saddens me.

  4. #54
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

    What is this noise?
    Anyways, back to this question.

    If you don't know, then simply say so, and we can continue, but please try to answer it.

  5. #55
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did
    Then why are you saying it couldn't have in this very thread using closely cropped, out of time context pictures of a section of the building that had no fire?

    Make up your mind.

  6. #56
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Having never really done well in school, they generally gravitate towards something that offers them some modi of intellectual self-iden y.

    This is why they drone on and on about "research" and reading and keeping an open mind, and all the other things that lend genuinely intelligent people some credibility when it comes to talking about topics.

    It is simply to make up for their own (generally unacknowledged) shortcomings, that they accuse others of lacking what they themselves lack, however unconsious they are of those shortcomings.

    It is, I think, on an emotional level, akin to the jealosy that athletically untalented people feel towards gifted athletes.

    On some level, they KNOW they aren't doing good critical thinking, or good fact-checking, and that they are being intellectually dishonest. This is why the first thing they charge debunkers with are a lack of these very things. If they don't possses these qualities, then no one else does either. This again plays into the pseudo-intellectual trapping that they like to wrap themselves in. If they can delude themselves consiously into thinking that they are honest seekers of truth, then they can easily dismiss others who don't agree with themselves as being deceived, or worse, deceivERs.

    I guess the internal line of reasoning there is that "if I am smart and honestly seeking the truth, and I have come to position X, then anybody who doesn't agree with X, MUST be dishonest, stupid, and deceitful."

    My 2 cents.
    Sorry you’re taking this so personal RG. Physicists’ are sleuths; they simply take the data that is available at the time and form mathematical models based on assumptions. When you get new data available, like the leaking of architectural designs that prove the NIST and FEMA reports bogus, new assumptions have to be made, it would be easier if FEMA or NIST or some government agency released all the information they knew about the floor designs, core structure, steel frames, elevators, yada...yada...yada of Towers 1,2 and 7, but it's been 6 years almost and that still hasn’t happened, so for now, 911 and it's official explanation are nothing but a conspiracy theory and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.

  7. #57
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Then why are you saying it couldn't have in this very thread using closely cropped, out of time context pictures of a section of the building that had no fire?

    Make up your mind.
    I tell you this stuff is like a religion.

    Hyper-conservative christians do the exact same thing when you question little eccentricities in the bible. For them giving ONE inch means that they must actually start to question everything else, and that their faith in their holy books (or in this case websites) was mis-placed.

  8. #58
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.

    Is that like the "intellectual corner" you were in when you joked about the Virginia Tech student?

  9. #59
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Sorry you’re taking this so personal RG. Physicists’ are sleuths; they simply take the data that is available at the time and form mathematical models based on assumptions. When you get new data available, like the leaking of architectural designs that prove the NIST and FEMA reports bogus, new assumptions have to be made, it would be easier if FEMA or NIST or some government agency released all the information they knew about the floor designs, core structure, steel frames, elevators, yada...yada...yada of Towers 1,2 and 7, but it's been 6 years almost and that still hasn’t happened, so for now, 911 and it's official explanation are nothing but a conspiracy theory and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.
    I'm not taking this very personally, other than to be offended when CTer theory is so shaky that it insults my intelligence.

    I DO hate it when people lie to me, and the CTer websites do exactly that. Not that our darling government hasn't done, and isn't doing the same, but this lot is as bad, if not worse than the GOP.

    In your rush to hate this administration, you have sucked this stuff up. Dude, there are PLENTY of reasons that the people in charge are venal and evil without having to make up.

  10. #60
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    so for now, 911 and it's official explanation are nothing but a conspiracy theory and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.
    The difference is we have a fairly complete working theory about the perpetrators, methods, motives and mechanisms involved in all aspects of all the 9/11 attacks.

    What do you have?

    What is your complete working theory about the perpetrators, methods, motives and mechanisms involved in all aspects of all the 9/11 attacks?

    Let's hear it.
    Last edited by ChumpDumper; 04-25-2007 at 02:43 PM. Reason: bad cut

  11. #61
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    DO hate it when people lie to me, and the CTer websites do exactly that. Not that our darling government hasn't done, and isn't doing the same, but this lot is as bad, if not worse than the GOP
    Have you ever read a book on intelligence ops RG? Do you know what poison pills are?

  12. #62
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    In your rush to hate this administration, you have sucked this stuff up. Dude, there are PLENTY of reasons that the people in charge are venal and evil without having to make up.
    No one is blaming the administration, well, except for Mouse. That's a straw man argument RG.

  13. #63
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    No one is blaming the administration, well, except for Mouse. That's a straw man argument RG.
    Heh, the very definition of a strawman argument is distoring someone elses beliefs.

    In this case a strawman argument would be if I restated what YOU believed and distorted that.

    This is simply me stating what I believe, namely that the CTer movement is as big of a bunch of liars as the Bush administration.

  14. #64
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Heh, the very definition of a strawman argument is distoring someone elses beliefs.

    In this case a strawman argument would be if I restated what YOU believed and distorted that.

    This is simply me stating what I believe, namely that the CTer movement is as big of a bunch of liars as the Bush administration.
    Yes, and it's much more intellectually honest to generalize everyone who does not believe what you believe as wackos, liers, and con-men.

  15. #65
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Have you ever read a book on intelligence ops RG? Do you know what poison pills are?
    Actually, you are thinking of the phrase "poisoning the well", in which an effort is made from the inside of a movement to discredit that movement.

    There is YOUR intellectual corner.

    If there is a big conspiracy, they would be motivated to do just that. Post a bunch of easily debunkable crap on the internet, so that anybody who is half-way intelligent would see how much bull is out there and conclude that the entire movement is looney.

    SO

    If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, Dan, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?

    How does mouse know?

    IF there is a conspiracy, and someone like mouse believes the most outlandish, illogical crap and spreads that around, THEN either:

    1) Mouse works for the conspiracy

    or

    2) Mouse is too stupid to tell reality from the fabricated fantasy of the infiltrators.

    Which is it mouse? Evil or stupid?

  16. #66
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,356
    I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did
    Liar.

    Aluminun oxides aren't gonna cause steel beams to fail Chuck. There may have been some present from the planes, but it doesn't explain how thick steel girders appear to be cut in a angle caused by thermite in a controlled demolition.


    Notice the beam directly behind the rescurer is cut at an angle. seemingly, some contend, by what is known by demolition experts as a thermite charge used to bring the building down at a known angle.


    Look, I'm just saying that it would have taken days, if not weeks to get the needed mechinery to lift that type of weight, and the pic just do not support that, those firemen look like first-responders, and besides if they had already cleared that area there would be much less debris around the beam.
    -------------------------------------------------

    Let's look at other tall building fires:

    Exhibit C:

    Catastrophic fire, no collapse

    I got 10 firemen on tape saying they heard a series of sequenced explosions before Towers 1 and 2 fell...who should i believe.......hmmmm....
    -------------------------------------------------


    No, free-fall would mean that there was catastrophic truss failure at all levels, a statistical impossibility.
    -------------------------------------------------


    No, when the building collapses the lowest point should be equal to the arc of the falling trusses, since that is the strongest part of any building, in any 911 video, you can see piles of debris that are expanding upward from what science says should be the lowest arc of collapse.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Anyway, back to the original point, in March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower. The set of drawings does not include plans for the other six buildings in the World Trade Center complex. However, since the Twin Towers were of almost identical construction, it is safe to assume that the structural details that the drawings shown for the North Tower are also largely applicable to the South Tower.

    Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
    -------------------------------------------------


    That's the lower part of the trusses, and why it collapsed at all is a bigger mystery, but the top trusses collapsed with little to no resistance.
    -------------------------------------------------


    So then it collapsed like a tree...wait a minute...
    -------------------------------------------------


    Yeah, well, I'm getting tired of explaining how the official story to the towers collapse defied the laws of physics, yet all anyone offers me is answers that defy the laws of physics.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Yeah, the rescuers climbed over steaming hot debris and just happened to cut that beam in the same angle as a thermite charge. What an idiot.
    -------------------------------------------------


    You know nothing about building demotion. Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.

    Behold the power of thermite

    Notice the color of the smoke? Ok....

    Notice the smoke should be black if it is jetfuel (which would have burned quickly and extinguished itself from a lack of air supply and office furniture) this again is more consistant with the use of thermite.
    -------------------------------------------------


    So your going with the firemen-rescuers-heros, what ever you want to call them, bringing a arc-welder, likely running off a big gas tank, to a raging fire? Idiot.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Notice the difference at the cut points? the pic I posted shows evidence of a chemical reaction consistant with thermite hot enough to melt steel, the pics he posted do not.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Affect it's structural integrity how? Can it create a 'kink point'? yes, Would it explain the complete collapse of both towers? No.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Only at temps much higher than that generated by burning jet fuel. In fact, the jet fuel would have burned off very quickly, leaving only office furniture as the sole source of the fire. Not nearly hot enough.
    -------------------------------------------------


    I'm not really sure what you are asking here. Random explosions would not go off in a sequential manner as there is evidence on some 911 tapes, there would be one or two big explosions.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Depends on the size of the explosions used. Shape charges would. This would also explain why some debris was thrown much greater distance than the debris pile of both towers. The explosions would have expelled the debris vertically. I can show you evidence that this is exactly what happened.
    -------------------------------------------------


    It's resistance. The debris is not what matters, that's just a distraction by debunkers, the debris clearly starts falling well before the building core collapses and should fall first. What matters is the speed at which the central core of the building collapses because the trusses are bolted together and the law of conservation of motion states that this resistance would considerable slow the rate of decent. For those of you unlearned, this means that it would have been impossible for the buildings to fall at 10 seconds under any other condition than that presented by a artificial va e, like bombs.
    -------------------------------------------------

    This is why I keep repeating that the pancake theory is bogus, this was posted by FWDT on page 5. So if the concrete didn't pancake, what happened to it?
    -------------------------------------------------


    It's very important because of the explosive power necessary to transform all that concrete in fine particles of dust, which is likely what happened.
    -------------------------------------------------


    hot as in, chemical reaction hot....yes. The picture by itself is inconclusive, but when you add it up with other possible evidence of thermite use, like the molten together boulder of steel and concrete you just posted (what generated that heat?), white smoke coming from both towers at the base and at the point of impact, fires burning for weeks after the towers collapse, yada, yada, yada...and then the reports from NIST and FEMA turn out to be completely bogus, according to architectural designs recently leaked by a whistle-blower, you gotta start wondering...
    -------------------------------------------------


    Again, we are talking explosive power here. In order for that much concrete to turn to dust there had to be more explosive power than just the PE and KE generated by the collapse.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Hey mr. facts, what is the combustion temp and burn rate of jet fuel?
    -------------------------------------------------


    It's simple physics, if you can't see that then there is really no hope for you. As I have shown and you have failed to disprove, the inner core was the strongest part of the building. Even if some of the trusses near the point of impact did collapse on the inner core, the building would collapse like a tree, not down on itself.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Evidence of molten steel was found at the very base of the WTC towers, and is a matter of public record. Still the implications are clear: such a melting of a section of all the inner core box pillars is possible, using relatively simple technology. Such compounds could have been applied to the interior or the exterior of even the largest of these columns in a surrep ious manner, to accomplish the task of melting and collapse. The amount necessary for complete melting of a segment of even the largest box column was calculated, and found possible. Of course complete melting was not necessary to cause total truss failure: a lesser amount of a thermite-like compound could have been used to raise the temperature of the steel to a point where the columns would fail before melting, although some melting must have occurred to account for the steel pools.
    -------------------------------------------------


    The first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side. Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry. This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south.

    If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree.
    A "gravity collapse" does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a siesmic e. It takes energy to project matter upwards and outwards.
    -------------------------------------------------


    The entire 110 story structure weighed 500,000 tonnes and the plane hit between the 94th and 98th floors according to the FEMA report.

    That's around 4545 tonnes per floor, if we take damage from the 90th floor upwards, that amounts to around 99090 tonnes traveling at 10m/s with an arrest in that velocity not long after, before a continuation of the collapse.

    That's enough to pancake the building, however, it is not enough to create a "mushroom" effect, as the force is distributed over a wide area and what is being ejected is 30-700 micron particles of concrete. The gravitational energy, of a single tower, would be around 400,000 KWH, in excess of 1,400,000 KWH is required to produce particles of this magnitude.

    That's 1,000,000 KWH of energy unaccounted for.

    I have considered the "bicycle pump effect", where the collapsing matter compressed the interior atmosphere rapidly, causing it to super-heat and, thus, convert the 200,000+ gallons of water to steam and ejecting it out through the top, however, such an event would have blown out every window...it would be almost like a scene from the film "Independence Day". No such event occurs.

    That tells us that compression from the top was not a factor. The ONLY thing that is left is a shockwave travelling from the bottom, to the top, in a HIGHLY directed fashion, with an estimated energy of around 1,000,000 KWH. This results in the "compression" of concrete to fine dust and the upwards thrust ejecting material 100m-200m into the air and pretty much in diameter also.

    In addition to this, it was clearly reported on National TV, of the existance of not only a basement level explosion, but also, of secondary devices.
    -------------------------------------------------


    We have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained temperatures of 800oC in order to buckle (not melt) — at the same time. But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26) And then to reach the 800oC at the same time, well, no, this scenario is far too improbable.

    So that approach was abandoned by FEMA in the next effort (FEMA, 2002). The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eager (Eager and Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Instead of having the columns fail simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But not so fast — what happens to the enormous core columns to which the floors were firmly attached? Why don’t these remain standing like a spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel core is founded on bedrock (Manhattan schist). FEMA does not totally ignore the core:

    As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column splice connections and also collapsed.” (FEMA. 2002)

    This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the 47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of requiring the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.

    That didn’t work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board. They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse.

    We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers?

    Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
    -------------------------------------------------


    Your assuming that the top of the building came down in one huge load-bearing piece, which every video of the collapse shows not to be the case. The top part of the building crumbles into millions of little pieces many of which fall off the side as it hits the lower part of the towers that are still standing, other which are unexplainably shot hundreds of feet away from the footprints of both towers. This all requires huge amounts of energy, neither of which your calculations have accounted for, RG.
    -------------------------------------------------


    So tell me RG, how did each floor of all three towers meet the necessary temperature for simulaneous truss collapse? Otherwise, explain to me how the buildings all fell at free fall speed again?
    -------------------------------------------------


    The NIST report completely fails to deal with the important dynamic aspects of the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 since the Final Report only deals with tipping as a problem of STATICS. NIST's "global collapse ensued" mantra is a total cop-out, whereby the problem of the collapse is abandoned before it has begun!

    To make matters worse, NIST give TWO descriptions of the pre-collapse events: one where the upper section tilts BEFORE collapse, and the other where the upper section TILTS AND FALLS at the same time. I guess NIST had too many authors.

    Even Bazant and Zhou (B&Z) do a better job than NIST on this problem since they at least consider the ANGULAR VELOCITY, d(theta)/dt, of the upper section of the South Tower. Their formula shows that, for a given angle of tilt the angular velocity depends on SQRT {3g/h)} where h is the height of the upper section. Hence the rate of tipping is fixed by the dimensions of the upper section. B& Z's formula is ok but it uses an approximation for the moment of inertia, I, of the upper block that ignores the WIDTH of the Tower. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to correct this using I = 1/3 M{h^2 + 1/4w^2} where w is the width of the Tower. If this improved formula is used, reliable values of d(theta)/dt may be calculated for any tilt angle. Integration of the equations also allows the time to reach a particular tilt angle to be derived.

    TROUBLE IS, THESE THEORETICAL TIMES ARE MUCH LONGER THAN THE OBSERVED TIMES (which may be measured quite accurately from any of a number of available videos)

    So, the bottom line is this:

    The top section of WTC 2 tipped at a FASTER angular velocity than is physically possible for a body freely rotating about a pivot at its base!

    Now add in some resistance to the tipping from column loading and the problem only gets worse!

    I would therefore ask all of you sheeple story fans out there to put away those finite element calculations for a while and check this out..... then please explain how the top of WTC 2 tipped so fast.

  17. #67
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Originally Posted by Nbadan
    I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did

    You're right about that stout. He would have had to have read the report to say such a thing.

  18. #68
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    By the by, here is how the official report plays out the initial collapse, essentially the same for both buildings based on my reading of the NIST report. Feel free to read the thing and correct this with a better understanding if you so choose.

    Airliner impacts building. Collision injects fire and initial fuel into an office environment filled with other fuel, such as plastic, paper, and furniture, in addition to literally knocking the thin coating of spray on insulation from the structural steel. Simultaineous fires start in multiple floors of the building in wide sections of those floors, in addition to weakening the structure.

    In the damaged sections, you have the remaining load bearing structure taking up the extra load from the portions that were destroyed from the collision.

    Add to this extra load stress per column (both inner and outer), additional lateral (sideways) stresses are placed from expanding trusses exposed to heat. With the additional load, and weakened by fire, the hottest columns start exhibiting "plasticity" and begin to sag, pulling on the connecting floor, and pulling the face of the building inwards at the floor/wall joints.

    Eventually, some part of the buildng gives way, and this instantly places more stress on the remaining structure, itself nearing limits of load/stress capacity. This results in a rather rapid collapse of nearby sections and simple physics do the rest.

    Did the structural steel melt? No. You don't have to even get close to melting point to get loss of strength. Medieval blacksmiths didn't have near the ability to melt iron or steel, but could get it hot enough to work with hammer and anvil into swords, armor, horseshoes, and all manner of things.
    Steel loses about 20% of its load bearing capacity at 300C, and some portions of the fires were hotter than that.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-10-2008 at 09:23 AM.

  19. #69
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
    1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

    As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a do ent from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any do entation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

    The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

    The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well do ented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:34 PM.

  20. #70
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
    2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

    NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

    Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of do ents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

    Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

    NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

    Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

    NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

    the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

    the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

    Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

    In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:34 PM.

  21. #71
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
    3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

    The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:35 PM. Reason: (formatting for readability)

  22. #72
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

    No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

    These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:35 PM. Reason: readability and link to NIST faq page

  23. #73
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    5. Why were two distinct es—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

    The seismic es for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The es began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:36 PM. Reason: (readability and link addition)

  24. #74
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

    NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

    As do ented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

    “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

    Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

    In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

    From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:36 PM. Reason: (formatting for ease of readability)

  25. #75
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
    OR
    7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?


    In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

    However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

    UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

    Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

    However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

    Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:37 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •