short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

Specifics · April 2007

chopitdown wrote:

It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Thank you dude, so we're clear it fell in its own footprint(ish for u Waves).

Now can we deal with the speed at which it did this?
Because this quote states that "given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity"

So this is the important issue, as had there not been that speed of fall, there would have been a lateral fall as it held up on the floors below and toppled.
hence why people say it is like a demolition.

chopitdown · April 2007

Specifics wrote:

Thank you dude, so we're clear it fell in its own footprint(ish for u Waves).

Now can we deal with the speed at which it did this?
Because this quote states that "given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity"

So this is the important issue, as had there not been that speed of fall, there would have been a lateral fall as it held up on the floors below and toppled.
hence why people say it is like a demolition.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

from the same source as above

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

audome25 wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/14/architects.htm

he was on the history channel once talking about what they designed the tower to withstand, i remember a point being that "withstand" meant the impact of an aircraft wouldn't knock it over.

All buildings are designed with fire in mind. Mainly because they all catch fire at some point in their lives. Again I believe this is more media spin.

It's like saying they had no idea (at all) that plane crashes actually cause fire, or jet fuel is not flammable prior to to 1972-73.

Yeahh ok...

More media bullshit designed to evade the obvious...

Take a big bite...mmmm

sonicreducer · April 2007

one of the main points of this thread was that the video showed to picture with the firemen and the beams of steel with precision cuts. no one has tried to debate this. to me, nothing could seem more obvious. what else could have caused such a clear cut? why does it look like there is previously melted steel dripping down the cuts?

for those that would argue this was during clean up,... are firemen the ones who were cutting the beams? why didn't they cut the beams to the ground?

to me, this is the best evidence i've seen of a 'demolition'.

gue_barium · April 2007

chopitdown wrote:

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

from the same source as above

If it were the impact of the jet, the collapses would have occured almost instanteously. If it were the fuel burning alone, it could not have happened. That's an impossibility.

Think.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

Interesting how Leslie Robertson mentions the fact that a 707 carries over 23,000 gallons of fuel, and a 767 carries 23,980 gallons. Also interesting to note the WTC planes had less than full tanks of fuel when they hit the towers. hmm...

"A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.

"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Leslie Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity."

Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said

"Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said

The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely.

.

chopitdown · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

If it were the impact of the jet, the collapses would have occured almost instanteously. If it were the fuel burning alone, it could not have happened. That's an impossibility.

Think.

it wasn't just the impact of the jet...it just wasn't fuel burning in that skyscraper...unless the entire building and everything in it was fire resistant.

It may be impossible, but it happened. Where's the evidence for set explosives? were traces of explosive materials found anywhere?

gue_barium · April 2007

chopitdown wrote:

it wasn't just the impact of the jet...it just wasn't fuel burning in that skyscraper...unless the entire building and everything in it was fire resistant.

It may be impossible, but it happened. Where's the evidence for set explosives? were traces of explosive materials found anywhere?

It was never investigated. The whole scrap heap was shipped off before anyone thought to question otherwise. All we have as evidence is logic with these videos and the people who were there.

gue_barium · April 2007

chopitdown wrote:

it wasn't just the impact of the jet...it just wasn't fuel burning in that skyscraper...unless the entire building and everything in it was fire resistant.

It may be impossible, but it happened. Where's the evidence for set explosives? were traces of explosive materials found anywhere?

My stance is that the entire idea of fire melting steel is just ridiculous.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

I just came across this information

It would be fair to note that:

"When he designed the twin towers, Minoru Yamasaki calculated the damage that could result from a plane striking the buildings. Air traffic controllers permitted planes to travel at 180 miles-per-hour within New York City’s air space. Using a Boeing 707 in his model, and factoring in the maximum speed of 180 mph, Yamasaki determined that seven floors on one side only would be demolished, but the building would stand."

chopitdown · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

My stance is that the entire idea of fire melting steel is just ridiculous.

what about fire weakening steel?

I'm not saying the gov't has been 100 percent honest about 9-11, but i'm also not going to buy into the conspiracy stuff b/c of that.

with that I'm going to enjoy the rest of my evening. have a good weekend.

gue_barium · April 2007

chopitdown wrote:

what about fire weakening steel?

I'm not saying the gov't has been 100 percent honest about 9-11, but i'm also not going to buy into the conspiracy stuff b/c of that.

with that I'm going to enjoy the rest of my evening. have a good weekend.

Nah. The fueled fire needs to maintain a temperature to do that, and that is another impossibility somebody wants us to believe.

69charger · April 2007

gue_barium wrote:

It was never investigated. The whole scrap heap was shipped off before anyone thought to question otherwise. All we have as evidence is logic with these videos and the people who were there.

Not true. The EPA sampled the dust in the air from a dozen sites all around the site. All samples were chemically analysed and the results published. I'm sure they still have samples for future reference.

69charger · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I just came across this information

It would be fair to note that:

"When he designed the twin towers, Minoru Yamasaki calculated the damage that could result from a plane striking the buildings. Air traffic controllers permitted planes to travel at 180 miles-per-hour within New York City’s air space. Using a Boeing 707 in his model, and factoring in the maximum speed of 180 mph, Yamasaki determined that seven floors on one side only would be demolished, but the building would stand."

So this negates the entire "it was designed to take it" argument.

Nice find!

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

69charger wrote:

So this negates the entire "it was designed to take it" argument.

Nice find!

It does nothing for explaining melted steel.

Ahnimus · April 2007

69charger wrote:

Not true. The EPA sampled the dust in the air from a dozen sites all around the site. All samples were chemically analysed and the results published. I'm sure they still have samples for future reference.

What did they find of significance?

Tritium

69charger · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It does nothing for explaining melted steel.

What about the "melted steel"? What specifically would you like addressed?

69charger · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

What did they find of significance?

Tritium

So what? Tritium is used in thousands of things.

Tritium is used in exit signs to light the exit in the event of an electrical outage or a fire. Signs often have several curies of tritium in them. If the exit signs were severely damaged, HT gas might escape into the local area, but it should be dispersed by ventilation or wind quickly. The damaged sign would be expected to have relatively high levels of tritium on it, and should not be handled.

How many exit signs do you think were in the WTC complex at the time of collapse?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

69charger wrote:

What about the "melted steel"? What specifically would you like addressed?

post #84

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzOuyin_2as

Specifics · April 2007

chopitdown wrote:

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

from the same source as above

Ok this could work, however this bit strikes me as interesting:

"Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure"

If these angle clips put a limit on the design allowables to the extent that it wasnt in fact designed the way it was supposed to be, then why the claims that it was? These were surely factored in to any claims about the capabilities of the buildings safety features?

Also the clearly melted steel seen in the video posted by the Roland TDK model.

The report you posted clearly defines the heats that could have been achieved by any fire that day, addressing all issues concerning flammables of all descriptions.

It also states that:

"However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best."

1. "Limiting factors on design allowables" which meant that the design was in fact flawed when it goes on to claim it wasnt.

2. Clear evidence of melted steel that it clearly states could not possibly have happened.

3. Lets also discuss the pilot skills necessary that were mentioned by Strangest Tribe's ex Navy flyer father.

Somethings wrong, lets get to the bottom of it.

short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

Comments

Categories