WTC Collapses

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

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

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

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It has been argued, and I agree with this argument, that what people think is the simple rumbling of the towers falling down also included the noise of the explosives going off. I agree that it was done in such a way as to be different from normal demolitions, wherein you hear a lot of loud cracks, but the fact that it was quieter just means that they would have had to use quieter then normal explosives.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Quieter explosives?!?!? LOL!!!! Your too funny sometimes Scott.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    What's wrong with my theory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ? Thermate is actually relatively quiet I believe.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50

    Thanks MacGyver. Gave me a good laugh. I like a good mystery as anyone. But somethings just don't make 1+1 in this scenairo for the Bush theory.
     
  8. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50

    Excellent reasoning Scott even if it is a bit out past left field.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I admit I'm going a bit out on a limb concerning this particular point. This is one that has puzzled me in regards to the controlled demolition theory. I think I heard that thermate is quieter then conventional explosives, but believe you me, I'd like some confirmation.

    However, I would argue that this is but one point. I believe that the vast majority of the evidence would suggest that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition, as I believe I've made fairly clear on my web site:
    Controlled Demolition of the WTC buildings

    Ofcourse, I still have to add material. The thing just takes forever. I finally got past KennyJC's post 32 anyway...
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to part of shaman_'s post 87.

    Ultimately, this particular issue isn't so important, although I would greatly appreciate it if either Headspin or psikeyhacker could confirm your perspective on this.

    It's one thing for the jet fuel to achieve temperatures 3 times as high for a few minutes. It's quite another for the WTC steel to get anywhere near that temperature. This issue is the truly important one.
     
  11. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    "I believe that the vast majority of the evidence would suggest that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition,"

    I hope Scott that you understand that by believing that controlled demolitions were used and maybe even 'quiet' charges were used, you now have to come back to the origin of the story and re-explain what kind of a terrorist is a 'careful' terrorist? We have Bin-Laden and his crew holding up hands that they did it. We have photos and paper trails of his people mixed in the destruction of the towers from conception to explosion. When have you ever heard of Bin-Laden accepting terroristic responsibility for something he did not do? I know of nothing. If you accept that Bin-Laden did do it, you have to forgo all the theories explaining he didn't do it and that messes with a great mystery.
    That would leave the story as the commission left it; jets collided, caused massive destruction, weakened at least several floors and who knows how many more and when the multiple damaged floors could not uphold the weight of the upper floors, it pancaked.

    Orrrrrr.....you can go with the 'nice guy' terroristic theory that someone in charge of dozens to hundreds of people working close to a ten year period rigged three buildings to pancake collapse after being hit by jets to do minimal damage so Americans would get pissed and blame would be leveled at Bin-Laden and then a reason to go 'terrorist hunting' would allow a president to do what no president had did before, to set the American military where it has been the most unwelcomed and the most hated in the world.
     
  12. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    Letter sent by site manager Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL certified the wtc steel components) to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigating the wtc collapse:

    Dr. Gayle,

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

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

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

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

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

    However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

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

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

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

    1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html
    2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
    3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
    4. http://web.archive.org/web/20031128025514/http://voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
    5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)
    6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

    Kevin Ryan
    -------------------

    page 6
    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

    "Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire on 13 panels"

    page 12 : "Of the more than 170 areas examined on the exterior panels, only
    three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel may
    have reached temperatures in excess of 250 ºC."

    the conclusions of the report (that the steel softened and buckled) are not supported by the temperature evidence of the samples.
     
  13. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    was that the video of bin laden talking in arabic?
    "all-el aq ba taqaauaa halal <strokes beard> haqafar mesideina world trade centre al-el paqsi"

    the passport that survived beautifully intact from a terrorist pocket through the fireball?

    when have you heard of a terrorist denying he did it, then later (allegedly) claim that he did?
     
  14. thecollage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    431
    it was brought down as a safety measure to avoid any collateral damage. all buildings have that in place. nobody ever talks about it because of the fear factor.
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Thanks a bundle Headspin

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    "Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

    I would ask anyone famaliar with the WTC films to watch the films I have a links for. Forget the words of the commentator. He is against any 9/11 conspiricy. But, he has put together much 'factual' photographic evidence for anyone to chew on to make their own opinion upon. Do watch carefully the points of the mathmatics and angles showing the actual weaknesses in the buildings.
    Then decide if the steel could not have been weakened sufficiently by the jet fuel and other accelerants especially in building 7.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I've already seen atleast one flaw in the video, but before I go on about such things, there have been some things I've been curious about concerning yourself.

    For starters, why the icon of the goofy looking polar bear

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ? Are you an alaskan born in 1976 fond of watching the furry creatures?
     
  18. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    lolol.....Thats the way Polar bears cross ice they sense is to thin to walk on. Makes the odds of breaking through much less then walking on all fours. I just like the number 76. I have been an Alaskan since 1977 having relocated from Montana when 19. The long nights suck from November to January but the long day light hours from May to August, nothing beats watching the sun set at 11pm or watching it rise at 3am.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    All the films used for theory have flaws. But the one showing actual internal collapse where the side of the tower between floors is actually buckling in wards, you can't get away from evidence like that. It shows metal has weakened from heat and is buckling. That is the metal structure buckling, not the concrete floor.
    They said the heat of the fire never got hot enough to melt any steel. Yet there is a video of the second tower before collapsing that shows molten metal running out of a hole on it's very corner in a small river like flow just like you would see it being poured from a bucket at a steel or iron plant.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2008
  19. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    The author of those videos lost all credibility a long time ago, in fact he is regarded as a total joke by most people.
    Almost everything he says in his videos are provable falsehoods.
    his usual method is to state speculation and unsupoorted assertions as facts, and he frequently disappears from discussions when challenged. The last time I challenged him he said (before disappearing) that the dust clouds from the twin towers knocked off the fireproofing in building 7 :bugeye:

    Look at his opening line for a perfect example of how he lies by obfuscation:
    "conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting fire doesn't melt steel.....this is a straw man argument. The NIST report does not (nor did it ever make the claim that the steel melted.

    err, hello!!...the claim isn't that NIST reported melted steel, the claim is actually that the steel did melt and that NIST didn't report it.

    "weakened sufficiently by the jet fuel and other accelerants especially in building 7." - eh? there was no jet fuel in wtc7 and the diesel was fully recovered from the tanks. Diesel did not contribute to the fire - even NIST acknowledge this. it seems you have fallen for the old speculation=fact ploy.
     
  20. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    "weakened sufficiently by the jet fuel and other accelerants especially in building 7."

    That was a two part sentence referencing the jet fuel and other accelerants aiding in the fires of the twin towers. The reference to building 7 was the movie showing a partial collapse before the entire collapse of building 7.

    When I go to both pro and con sites, I don't accept much of the talk except to see what their opinions are. What I look at is the evidence they both use because of all the evidence out there, one camp won't show certain pictures, films etc., if it is damaging to their theory and vice-versa for the other camp. So I find going to both camps gives me total access to all the evidence a single camp will not always include.
    The fact of building 7 is that it had at least three huge containers of diesel fuel to run the building. If you look at how the building was built, you can see the possibility with some intense heat how it POSSIBLY could have fell.
    The 9/11 mystery is like the Kennedy assination in Dallas.....their are dozens of theories and of them several good ones but in the end, it always comes down to a single explanation even with questions unanswered.

    In this link go to minute 1:40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w The camp of 9/11 conspiricy rarely likes to address the buckling issue because they then have to give their own explanations for what a buckling of a couple floors like that would do to hundreds of tons of weight above it and how that upper weight could effect the lower building if a collapse happened. Explaining the normal physics of that factual setting takes a little bit away from the "bomb theory" they claim brought the whole building down.
    About the charges again. In building demolition explosions happen three ways...#1. Top to bottom....#2. Bottom to top.....#3. All at the same time. If you view building demolition sites, you will note that close case explosives (big effect, minimal blast) still leave huge plumes of dust jetting from the floors the explosives were set on. In none of the films or pictures of the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11 even remotely produced any explosive plumes except for a squib here and there.
     
  21. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    The east penthouse collapse is not in dispute, i do not see how this rules out demolition, nor do i see where it strengthens the case for collapse due to fire.

    The diesel tanks were located below ground, they were found to be near full during cleanup. The generators and fuel lines could not have provided fuel to cause a fire induced collapse, the air temperatures from such a fire would have caused failure of the generators - therefore no diesel! - page 25:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

    53 witnessess state a shot came from the grassey knoll, none say the book depository. "I saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence" - Jean Hill.
    kennedy was shot in the face, not the back of the head - watch the darn zepruder footage!
    Oswald was military intelligence.
    That is all you need.
    Endless discussion only suits those who want the facts covered up.

    cause and effect - was the sagging floor the cause of the collapse? or was it an effect of the collapse?

    If the sagging floor was the cause of the collapse then how does it explain the inward bowing of perimeter columns?
    Before the floor sagged, thermal expansion would have exherted a force outwards on the columns. since there was no bowing outwards, we can deduce that the perimeter columns resisted the thermal expansion of the floors. Thermal expansion is a much greater force than any force due to sagging, so we are asked to believe the columns failed from a weak force (sagging) yet resisted a greater force (thermal expansion). By my crude calculation thermal expansion would have produced 20 inches of expansion at 500C.
    http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-01/msg00079.html

    Consider that the sagging and buckling of the perimeter columns was an effect of the collapse. What would happen if the core failed and pulled the tower downwards (the core carried the majority of the load).
    Wouldn't that pull in the perimeter columns due to the fact that the core was connected to the perimeter via the floors. Now you have to explain what caused the massively interconnected box column core to collapse. fire?
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2008
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Thank god you and psikey are here. I do my best, but this math stuff is where I flounder

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  23. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50

    #4. I use to braze. I understand about fire and metal. In the one film I saw where a small river of molten metal was running out of the corner of a tower, onto the street level far below, that told me the metal within the building we could not see in all probability had reached not only a weakening point so the metal was bending but had reached a melting point, finding it's way to lower floors to do more structural damage.
    You take 3 to 6 damaged floors, pillars and trusses weakend and damaged and severed and let one or two of those middle floors break apart due to damage with hundreds of thousands of tons above begining to come down and the effect is going to be pretty natural. Depending on how much damage was done to the lower floors (which apparently was alot) would show how the building would possibly fall (as it did). But in consideration of how the top section seemed to disintegrate on it's way down I think reveals more damage was done to the integrity of the two towers of the upper floors and lower floors then was considered by most.
    The collapsing of the damaged floors was enough to allow gravity to do the rest.
    I would actually like to see the 'terrorists' theory come to be as it would explain much but at present, that is not the case. So I will go the way of the jets till proof positive is shown either way.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page