short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

24567…26

Comments

  • MakingWaves
    MakingWaves Posts: 1,294
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    No doubt planes hit the towers. Would they fall like that? ...maybe...seems very but for those particular "buildings" freaks of nature or whatever.. I suppose maybe... Would #7 fall as it did? it seems a definite stretch.

    If it was common sense that fires could melt down any sky scraper, then why are they built everywhere and so high? It would seem to be a rather risky and foolish endeavor no?

    Haven't they already performed tests with jet fuel on steel beams to evaluate their strength?

    Was any other country involved in the investigation? Workers from all over the world died in the WTC.

    Buildings are built that high everywhere because there are systems in place to fight normal fires. The fire has to burn at high temperatures for long periods of time. I don't know for sure but I bet new sky scrapers have to be built to withstand such collisions and have back up systems for fighting fires but I don't think they would ever be able to design around such things as what happened that day.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    MakingWaves wrote:
    Buildings are built that high everywhere because there are systems in place to fight normal fires. The fire has to burn at high temperatures for long periods of time. I don't know for sure but I bet new sky scrapers have to be built to withstand such collisions and have back up systems for fighting fires but I don't think they would ever be able to design around such things as what happened that day.

    I thought the jet fuel all burned off after 20 mins. They towers didn't burn for long before they fell. The WTC buildings were built to withstand a heavier plane strike than what did hit them.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    No doubt planes hit the towers. Would they fall like that? ...maybe...seems odd but for those particular "buildings" freaks of nature or whatever.. I suppose maybe... Would #7 fall as it did? it seems a definite stretch.

    If it was common sense that fires could melt down any sky scraper, then why are they built everywhere and so high? It would seem to be a rather risky and foolish endeavor no?

    Haven't they already performed tests with jet fuel on steel beams to evaluate their strength?

    Was any other country involved in the investigation? Workers from all over the world died in the WTC.

    it was a combination of effects. different applied sciences that must be looked at as a whole; and not individually. you don't see a dentist for a foot problem. jet fuel won't melt steel beams but if you enclose the beams in a chamber under stress; use jet fuel plus O2 in massive quantities; you'll melt them. the buildings acted exactly like a jet engine. the more air sucked up the central passage the hotter the fire.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    it was a combination of effects. different applied sciences that must be looked at as a whole; and not individually. you don't see a dentist for a foot problem. jet fuel won't melt steel beams but if you enclose the beams in a chamber under stress; use jet fuel plus O2 in massive quantities; you'll melt them. the buildings acted exactly like a jet engine. the more air sucked up the central passage the hotter the fire.

    So it was a design flaw? The buildings all acted like a giant blacksmiths furnace? Where did the air come from, didn;t they say something about the elevator shafts being sealed?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I thought the jet fuel all burned off after 20 mins. They towers didn't burn for long before they fell. The WTC buildings were built to withstand a heavier plane strike than what did hit them.

    you need to do more research. they did survive the strike; they didn't survive what happened next. you're not seeing the event as several events.
    1) plane strike
    2) dispursement of tons of jet fuel
    3) the center staiway acting as a chimney
    4) the mesh skin holding in heat and directing heat upwards
    5) the beams already stressed from the weight of the building
    6) vibrations loosening welds and rivits

    and that's just the beginning. you either don't or can't understand all the variables involved.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    you need to do more research. they did survive the strike; they didn't survive what happened next. you're not seeing the event as several events.
    1) plane strike
    2) dispursement of tons of jet fuel
    3) the center staiway acting as a chimney
    4) the mesh skin holding in heat and directing heat upwards
    5) the beams already stressed from the weight of the building
    6) vibrations loosening welds and rivits

    and that's just the beginning. you either don't or can't understand all the variables involved.

    So the buildings weren't built properly is what you are saying?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    So it was a design flaw? The buildings all acted like a giant blacksmiths furnace? Where did the air come from, didn;t they say something about the elevator shafts being sealed?

    blacksmiths furnace is the best analogy. have you ever opened the door to a wood stove? now you have chimney effect. and the buildings being wrapped in mesh held it together long enough to hold the heat. notice how the survivors were in the stairwell where all the fresh air was being sucked up?
    the whole thing is cause and effect. one event caused another.
    did katrina devastate new orleans or was it the levies? was it the rain; or the wind? it was the cumulation of all the events and that's what happened with the wtc.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    So the buildings weren't built properly is what you are saying?

    there is not a single building built to survive an attack like that. are you saying buildings should be built to withstand plane strikes and meteor strikes now? or should engineers sit and think up wild senarios of what could or might happen and design structures to withstand anything? i'm willing to bet i can drive my truck through your house. does that mean your house wasn't built properly?
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    onelongsong wrote:
    there is not a single building built to survive an attack like that. are you saying buildings should be built to withstand plane strikes and meteor strikes now? or should engineers sit and think up wild senarios of what could or might happen and design structures to withstand anything? i'm willing to bet i can drive my truck through your house. does that mean your house wasn't built properly?

    Well the WTC towers WERE designed with the thought of an aircraft flying into them. I'm not supporting a theory here, but I remember an interview w/ the project manager for the construction of the towers that said that.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    there is not a single building built to survive an attack like that. are you saying buildings should be built to withstand plane strikes and meteor strikes now? or should engineers sit and think up wild senarios of what could or might happen and design structures to withstand anything? i'm willing to bet i can drive my truck through your house. does that mean your house wasn't built properly?

    It you can drive your truck through my house and my house was supposed to be built to prevent exactly that...then yes my house was not built properly.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Well the WTC towers WERE designed with the thought of an aircraft flying into them. I'm not supporting a theory here, but I remember an interview w/ the project manager for the construction of the towers that said that.

    and they took the hit very well. i don't however recall the project manager saying they would withstand a "blast furnace" senario in addition to a plane hit.
    seperate events; each weakening the structure.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    It you can drive your truck through my house and my house was supposed to be built to prevent exactly that...then yes my house was not built properly.

    the towers did survive the plane strike. they didn't survive what happened next.
  • Specifics
    Specifics Posts: 417
    ledveddererman wrote:
    Well the WTC towers WERE designed with the thought of an aircraft flying into them. I'm not supporting a theory here, but I remember an interview w/ the project manager for the construction of the towers that said that.

    Multiple plane strikes.
    onelongsong wrote:
    i don't however recall the project manager saying they would withstand a "blast furnace" senario in addition to a plane hit.
    seperate events; each weakening the structure.

    I would have thought that the designer would have taken into account that planes carry jet fuel when designing it to withstand plane strikes, or would have mentioned this in his comment?. I'm no expert and i certainly dont know what happened, highly suspect tho to anyone surely?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    the towers did survive the plane strike. they didn't survive what happened next.

    One would think, at the time, they would know a bit about the events that take place in the process of an airplane hitting a building.

    Actually that's a question. Have any airplanes collided with buildings prior to the construction of the WTC towers?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    One would think, at the time, they would know a bit about the events that take place in the process of an airplane hitting a building.

    Actually that's a question. Have any airplanes collided with buildings prior to the construction of the WTC towers?

    welcome to the world of variables. NOW we know what could happen. but how do you draw out an event that was unthinkable until it happened? if the planes hit lower or higher; the result would have been different.
    planes have collided with buildings but not one built like the wtc. none as tall as the wtc. an important factor for the chimney effect to cause the fire to be able to melt steel. not a building wrapped in mesh which held it together to allow this blast furnace senario.
  • therover
    therover Posts: 88
    The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.

    They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.

    The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.
  • Specifics
    Specifics Posts: 417
    therover wrote:
    The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.

    They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.

    The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.

    Ok this is the first convincing argument i've heard from that side of the debate.
    At least it was for a bit, because ok so you've got high levels of 02, cool, but that would make the fuel burn faster and apart from jet fuel what else was there to burn? serious question, once the fuels gone, no fire.
    Steel and concrete wont burn, i dont think, computers, desks ect , not even worth considering gone in seconds.
    This jet fuel, i think it was proved, would burn up in a matter of seconds? Not long enough surely?
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    therover wrote:
    The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.

    They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.

    The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.

    Until someone gives evidence to the contrary, this is what I believe to be true. Well stated.
  • therover
    therover Posts: 88
    Specifics wrote:
    Ok this is the first convincing argument i've heard from that side of the debate.
    At least it was for a bit, because ok so you've got high levels of 02, cool, but that would make the fuel burn faster and apart from jet fuel what else was there to burn? serious question, once the fuels gone, no fire.
    Steel and concrete wont burn, i dont think, computers, desks ect , not even worth considering gone in seconds.
    This jet fuel, i think it was proved, would burn up in a matter of seconds? Not long enough surely?


    Look around your home or office. Everything you see will burn at some point. Think about all the carpet, desk, chairs, drywall, ceiling tiles, paper (can you imagine the amounts of paper in that building!!), computers, printers, clothing, even the metal pieces that your desk drawers ride on will burn eventually.(Which by the way, might explain the molten medal pile they found under the rumble. Have they ever said that was actually molten steel?) There had to be tons of combustables(sp?) in that building.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    therover wrote:
    The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.

    That is completely false. The building was built with an inside core support system.

    Also when the building collasped, the fires had been out for a while.

    Please watch the video if you're going to make these claims. It's less than 20mins.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde

Categories