Quake3World

i have worked in pyrotechnics

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:i have worked in pyrotechnics

roflmao...

hmmmmmm

it's okay if you can't see the light coloured smoke in the video geoff

everyone else can

Freakaloin wrote:
no i am saying the explosions from the fuel tanks on the planes didn't have the force behind them to structually damage the towers...

In case you didn't notice I already said this.

Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:
But really, it's not about he force of the explosion that did the buildings in. It's the relentless jet fuel fire that degredated the steel, and the fact that there was a large gapping hole in the side of the building. Skyscrapers are a balancing act in steel and concrete. Take a large part of one wall and the top of the building will want to lean towards the side with the hole. That is a huge compressive strain on the center steel beams and a huge tensile strain on the opposite wall of where the hole is. On top of that you have jet fuel burning. While jet fuel in itself isn't enough to "melt" steel... it's more than enough to make it glow red and weaken it.

Also any fire retardant on the beams would have been stripped off the beams from the sheer amount of kinetic energy from the crash.

R00K said under one of the pictures that the fire burned up in a few minutes. When a jet crashes in the ocean in the middle of the day, the fuel can still be seen burning on the surface late into that same night. It's not going to just go out in a matter of minutes.

But I guess if people don't use small words with big pictures you tend to ignore it, or don't unerstand it.

Freakaloin wrote:

R00k wrote:Geoff you could fuck up a wet dream. Why do you enter my threads?

ok rook ur becoming a moron...ur a little late to the game and highly misinformed still...in about a year u'll know what i know...if u keep researching...

lol, what you call researching is giving credence to every hair-brained story out there that disagrees with the administration. that's the difference, i'm trying to explain things that don't make sense -- you're just anti-authority.

If you want real research, read Crossing the Rubicon by Mike Ruppert.

It's the best-selling 9/11 book besides the Kean Commission report.

i read mikes book a year ago or so...

great

like i said..ur way behind...

Dave wrote:Here's a good article about how the floors are really suspended (hint: not from the core)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

I read that all of that, expecting an authoritative source to provide me with previously unrealized information. What I saw was the opinion of the same Dr. Thomas Eagar whom we already discussed earlier in the thread.

First off, he admits that his analysis is speculation -- not that you said it wasn't, but this reinforces my statement that he has no more authority on the subject than the employee of Underwriters Labratories, who actually certified the steel in the towers, and were responsible for the government's scientific analysis of the collapse. I understand that PBS is a pretty respected source for straight-shooting documentaries, but that doesn't give this guy's assertions any more credence than any other engineering/construction/demolitions specialist who also studied the attacks.

Furthermore, he said that it wasn't until he "saw Building 7 of the World Trade Center implode," that it dawned on him what happened that day. It has since been learned that Building 7 was intentionally demolished with charges.

He also said that there it would not have been possible for either of the towers to have tipped in one direction or the other, simply because of their sheer weight. This is unbelievable coming from the mind of a highly-credited engineer. If you have any structure, no matter the weight, whose walls are designed to be stable at all, then it will be no surprise that even if severely weakened, those walls will still be able to affect the falling path of the upper part of the structure. By saying the weight of the building was too great for the center of gravity to be changed enough to cause a leaning topple is ridiculous, because it entirely leaves out the effect of the remaining structure itself. This is not a working model - unless of course you're assuming that all the walls and the center column have been completely melted to the point of offering no significant resistance on any side at all.

He also offers a grossly oversimplified analysis of demolition - essentially saying that any finnesse and attention to detail is unneccessary:

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down.

This section:

Well, like most buildings, the World Trade Center was mostly air. It looked like a huge building if you walked inside, but it was just like this room we're in. The walls are a very small fraction of the total room. The World Trade Center collapse proved that with a 110-story building, if 95 percent of it's air, as was the case here, you're only going to have about five stories of rubble at the bottom after it falls.

Once again uses the approach that the WTC "proved" that all previous scientific theories just apparently weren't right. Even though the floor slabs alone were steel-reinforced concrete that were designed not to break apart. Obviously, a lot of that concrete is going to be crushed by the sheer weight of the rest of the building, but there should have been massive pieces of floor slabs left from the top floors towards the top of the rubble. Steel-reinforced concrete designed to hold tons of weight does not powderize by hitting the ground under its own weight, especially after having its fall broken by every other floor on the way down.



But this part should make anyone do a double-take:

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once

NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.

Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.

NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

These two statements are not only contradictory, but the latter is blatantly false. The type of steel used in the buildings does not lose half its strength at 1,200°F -- it doesn't begin to weaken until at least 2,000°F even without fireproofing; this has been stated by the company who certified the steel, and then reconstructed and tested it again. This point alone pulls the legs out from under his entire analysis of the event.

This is also absurd:

If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve.

Temperature difference can distort steel, but steel will not distort at a lower temperature simply because the heat is only on one side.


And then to cap off his analysis:

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

You see that he goes from saying a 1200-degree fire can possible cause a 50% reduction in strength (which has already been demonstrated to be false by itself), to saying that the same fire can cause an 80% reduction in strength, because the beams were hotter on one side than the other.

Almost everything he says in that analysis is highly questionable, and is an attempt to build credibility for his case, like this statement:

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down.

There is no way any repairs would need to be done from any small fire in a corner, even if it was in a trash can full of kerosene. We know this because the North Tower had a severe fire in it for over 3 hours in 1975, and they never had to replace a single beam.


But you also have to question the part of the angle-clips he mentions, and the floor trusses. First off, even the animated diagram in the article does not show what the floor beams looked like -- they were solid beams, not the thin spindly trusses that are shown bending in the picture.

But the one part of the official analysis that I DO agree with, is those angle clips. The angle clips were definitely the weakest link in the structure of the building, as he said.

There is one thing missing, though, from all the analyses of why the collapse happened. Every accepted theory, at some point, cites the hole in the wall as a major part of the reason for structural failure. It's talked about in the same sense as taking a leg from under a chair, or basically saying that, if you remove 30 out of 90 beams from the face of a building (as an example), then you are increasing the load on the remaining beams by 1/3.
But this only follows the thinking that they are extremely long beams which run from the top to the bottom of the tower, or close enough to it, so that when you remove one, an equal fraction of the entire weight of the building is added to the remaining beams.

This is not the case with a redundant system of beams used in the towers. Each beam only spanned a few floors, they were connected at every floor, and the ends were staggered along the side of the building.

So if you have a beam running from, say, floors 80-85; the next one from 81-86; next from 82-87; and so on, then there is a different effect when you remove a portion of these from two or three floors. That means the weight supported by those beams is not only transferred to the surrounding beams, but it is also transferred indirectly to the other floor slabs that are connected to those beams, and to the floor-support beams which hold them up, and to the core beams in the center of the building.

The pancake-style floor-free-falling theory does not hold water because of its dependence on (relatively) low-temperature fire to significantly weaken steel, a large hole to remove the structural support of an entire floor, a crash impact to aid the weakening, an assumption that heavy things will fall straight down even if a structure designed to hold their weight is perfectly in the way, the company that certified the steel to be completely wrong in not only their original certification but also in their recreation of the materials and tests, and a number of other things.

It's an unbelievably contrived theory to explain away different strange phenomena and behaviors that don't occur under any other circumstances, but could easily be explained by demolition.

Have you ever been in construction or have you ever worked with steel before R00k?

Yes, I've done both, and my father worked in demolition for several years.

I was a certified welder and I've worked with steel directly for years, but that does not make me an expert.

Just cause your dad did some demolition does not mean that you are some kind of an expert either. Yet you try to pull the rug out from under expert opinion. So far you have not convinced anyone here that someone has placed explosives in the building, and there is a reason for that. As much as you might try, I don't think you're going to be defeating anyone's comen sence anytime soon.

Yeah, Rook, I'm going to have to say that you're in over your head trying to dispute the analysis of a Materials Science professor from MIT.

R00k wrote:
It's an unbelievably contrived theory to explain away different strange phenomena and behaviors that don't occur under any other circumstances, but could easily be explained by demolition.

Except for the fact that there's absolutely no evidence of demolition whatsoever. FFS, you must have watched the clips enough, and seen enough buildings being demo'd. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF EXPLOSIONS OF THE TYPE AND MAGNITUDE NECESSARY TO BRING DOWN THAT BUILDING.
And from a common sense point of view, there was no reason to plant charges. If the towers fell or they didn't, the responsible parties would have had their desired result.

yep.

and even if they were going to demo the buildings, why basicly bankrupt an entire industry by flying 767's into them. Crazy terroists with truck bombs is just as believable of an excuse to bring down the towers as flying jets into them. I'm sure the fbi, cia or whoever screwed the pooch on the hijackings, but to suggest that they knew when it was going to happen and load the buildings up with explosives and send every american carrier into the shitter is a little far fetched. I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the airlines have lost as much money as the war has cost to this point. well maybe not that much, but you see what I'm getting at. If it was planed by our government, the magnitude of this loss would have to have been seen. war hungry the boys in the back room may be, but not that hungry.

Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:I was a certified welder and I've worked with steel directly for years, but that does not make me an expert.

Just cause your dad did some demolition does not mean that you are some kind of an expert either. Yet you try to pull the rug out from under expert opinion. So far you have not convinced anyone here that someone has placed explosives in the building, and there is a reason for that. As much as you might try, I don't think you're going to be defeating anyone's comen sence anytime soon.

No need to go into attack mode here. I never once tried to act like I was an expert. I'm a certified welder, although I've never done a lot of it, and I've only spent several summers working in construction. However, all the facts and info I've gleaned and everything I've stated, I've gotten from experts in the respective fields.

I've cited a few sources in this thread, and I've cited dozens of other sources in threads just like this. Every time I've cited sources, they have been dismissed or ignored, or a different part of my argument or just my attitude or character in general has been singled out.

If you want to dispute anything I've said, please feel free to do so. If you want to assert that steel which has been certified by UL to withstand 3000 degree temperatures, actually won't stand up to 1200 degrees, please feel free to do so. At that point, I will be asking you for sources. The same goes for any of the points I have made. But none of my specific points have been challenged - yet I am arguing the incredible argument here.

I seriously doubt that I am going to convince anyone here that the towers were a demolition, who already believes otherwise. That is not neccessarily my goal, or the point of this thread.

However, I would think by now that the more rational people here will begin to recognize that the types of arguments they are using, are the exact same types of arguments I am being criticized for.

There may be no proof that the towers were demolished, but there is also no proof that they were taken out by 19 wily arabs with box cutters. Not a shred has ever been provided.

So whichever side of the debate you are on, an objective analysis should tell you that there isn't anything that makes one of these theories more fanciful than the other.

There are two opposing, and equally incredible, conspiracy theories here. And since there has been no investigation, no evidence provided, no serious effort to answer important questions, then someone should be made to provide these things to the public. There is a very, very large body of people who do not believe the official story is worth the paper it is written on, and a lot of those people are family members of the victims, and residents of New York.

So every person who tries to suppress or avoid such debates instead of researching both sides with equal skepticism, is helping to prevent any sort of accountability for what happened on that day, and helping to keep victims' families from getting answers to the questions they have had for nearly 4 years.

Nightshade wrote:Except for the fact that there's absolutely no evidence of demolition whatsoever. FFS, you must have watched the clips enough, and seen enough buildings being demo'd. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF EXPLOSIONS OF THE TYPE AND MAGNITUDE NECESSARY TO BRING DOWN THAT BUILDING.
And from a common sense point of view, there was no reason to plant charges. If the towers fell or they didn't, the responsible parties would have had their desired result.

Maiden wrote:yep.

and even if they were going to demo the buildings, why basicly bankrupt an entire industry by flying 767's into them. Crazy terroists with truck bombs is just as believable of an excuse to bring down the towers as flying jets into them. I'm sure the fbi, cia or whoever screwed the pooch on the hijackings, but to suggest that they knew when it was going to happen and load the buildings up with explosives and send every american carrier into the shitter is a little far fetched. I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the airlines have lost as much money as the war has cost to this point. well maybe not that much, but you see what I'm getting at. If it was planed by our government, the magnitude of this loss would have to have been seen. war hungry the boys in the back room may be, but not that hungry.

There were billions of dollars made that day on bets that stocks of all involved companies would plummet. And they did. Not just stocks of American and United Airlines, but the stocks of large firms which had offices in the Trade Center.

The leaseholders also benefited. Larry Silverstein took over the lease of WTC7 very shortly before the attacks happened, and it was he who helped decided to demo the building, from his own testimony. He had a massive insurance policy on it, and the insurance company tried unsuccessfully in court to get out of their obligation to pay it - that court document was posted earlier in this thread.

And if I might make an analogy, any assertion that this guy from MIT has a more valuable opinion on the matter than any other qualified expert in the field, is the same as making the assertion that Bill Frist could tell whether Terri Schiavo was brain dead better than any other doctor by watching a video of her in her hospital bed -- or that another doctor could surmise it better than he could from the same footage.

Thanks R00k for the thread

Very interesting

R00k wrote:

There were billions of dollars made that day on bets that stocks of all involved companies would plummet. And they did. Not just stocks of American and United Airlines, but the stocks of large firms which had offices in the Trade Center.

The leaseholders also benefited. Larry Silverstein took over the lease of WTC7 very shortly before the attacks happened, and it was he who helped decided to demo the building, from his own testimony. He had a massive insurance policy on it, and the insurance company tried unsuccessfully in court to get out of their obligation to pay it - that court document was posted earlier in this thread.

Oh I can most assuredly see that people benefited from the attacks, but that doesn't refute my point.
Your analogy regarding the MIT prof is most apt, although I think it falls a bit short.

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:

There were billions of dollars made that day on bets that stocks of all involved companies would plummet. And they did. Not just stocks of American and United Airlines, but the stocks of large firms which had offices in the Trade Center.

The leaseholders also benefited. Larry Silverstein took over the lease of WTC7 very shortly before the attacks happened, and it was he who helped decided to demo the building, from his own testimony. He had a massive insurance policy on it, and the insurance company tried unsuccessfully in court to get out of their obligation to pay it - that court document was posted earlier in this thread.

Oh I can most assuredly see that people benefited from the attacks, but that doesn't refute my point.
Your analogy regarding the MIT prof is most apt, although I think it falls a bit short.

It refutes your point that there was no reason to bring down the buildings.

As far as being able to actually see the charge explosions (just my opinion obviously), I feel sure that charges could have been planted around the core, and small ones on the angle-brackets we talked about under the floors, without anything really being visible.

But, as for your point that there was no evidence of demolition -- well, there was no evidence left of anything, which is half my point.

Under orders from Dick Cheney, FEMA set up a command center there the day before the attacks, and then immediately afterward shipped all the evidence overseas and melted it before anyone could see. Why doesn't this sound suspicious and beg an investigation to anyone? I just don't understand.

Whiskey 7 wrote:Thanks R00k for the thread

Very interesting

You're welcome. Why the " "?

R00k wrote:
It refutes your point that there was no reason to bring down the buildings.

As far as being able to actually see the charge explosions (just my opinion obviously), I feel sure that charges could have been planted around the core, and small ones on the angle-brackets we talked about under the floors, without anything really being visible.

But, as for your point that there was no evidence of demolition -- well, there was no evidence left of anything, which is half my point.

Under orders from Dick Cheney, FEMA set up a command center there the day before the attacks, and then immediately afterward shipped all the evidence overseas and melted it before anyone could see. Why doesn't this sound suspicious and beg an investigation to anyone? I just don't understand.

I didn't say that there was no reason to bring down the buildings, exactly. I said that there was no reason to go to all the effort and potential exposure of wiring the buildings with charges.
To my knowledge, there have been analyses done on the structural steel. So apparently not all the evidence was removed and melted.
Hey, I'd like to know why a FEMA command center was set up the day before the attacks, too. Weren't there "exercises" planned involving a terrorist strike or something?

And to wire charges where they'd be assured of having the desired effect, well, I can't see that happening without a large, noticeable effort.

the us govt has been attacking its own ppl for hundreds of years to start or get involved in wars...why would they stop now?