September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

a reply to: hellobruce

"Babbling" about the same topic I have been for years...You, Bruce, are no structural engineer and you seem to forget about the statements of Fire Dept. personnel saying that..."It sounded like explosives...boom..boom.boom..coming down the floors"....

www.youtube.com...

What YOU fail to discuss or even address is the fact that no "structural integrity" was compromised on the floors BELOW the plane strike. I mention "structural steel" as encased in concrete because that is what you call the REBAR that was in the "vertical columns" of the WTC...Ever looked at a blueprint of the buildings Bruce? If you did, you would notice that the 40+ columns that make up the center structure of the WTC's could not have been compromised from a plane hit that lost most of it's energy when the majority of the exploding fuel came out the other side of the building....

How do you account for the "melting metal" that is seen dripping from the side of WTC in the videos?
How do you account for the "pool of molten metal" that some responders alluded to?

You make it seem as if someone picked up the WTC building at floor 79 and dropped it on the rest of the building....Thereupon causing massive structural failure...It doesn't work like that Bruce...The building was designed with live floor loads and having the ability for the entire structure to be able to handle the failure of part of the structure. Go ask any PE about the structural integrity of the building and you will find that most are amazed that a structure like WTC could have a "massive" fail like that...

The OS makes it sound as if the planes hit the building and somehow "melted" all the "REBAR (structural steel) in the columns (the main support system of the buildings) and that is why the buildings "pulverized" themselves...

The building was designed under the pretense of a floor failing. The floor below had to be able to accept that failure and not compromise the rest of the structure. I will admit that it would be hard for the structural integrity of 1 floor having been compromised with 4 or 5 or 30 floors, for that matter, to have withstood such tremendous pressure and not fail....BUT, it DID NOT compromise the structural integrity of the floors BELOW the plane strike....SOMETHING else had to compromise that structural integrity.....I do not know what it was that did that ....I can see "squibs" in videos...I can hear fire dept. people tell me they heard explosions, I can hear people that were there (not you or I ) tell me what they saw....But I have NO idea what really happened.....Guess what, neither do you.........

I find you to be a very irritating person but I will still try and debate this with you in a logical fashion....Your callous and offensive response to people on most of your posts strikes me as you being a very pissed off individual, probably single, most possibly gay, over 50 and living in your parents basement with nothing better to do than bash people trying to find the truth.You are so enamored in your own illustrious conceit, that you will not even entertain the notion that something may be amiss..You vote republican and you go out into the world telling everyone how wrong they are. You are probably the delight of the party at holiday celebrations until you have had too many drinks and then you become the "imsofakingwetoddid" person that everyone wants to send home. Take you attitude and your self proclaimed PHD and go over to BIN network and you should fit right in...

Have a good day....

lol

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: AgentSmith

You should probably consider changing your moniker. With your posting history, it leads to obvious conclussions, from those of us who are fortunate enough to see through the maze of government and media propaganda.

Ever hear of Edward Snowden?

Anyone would think you ignored what I wrote and assume I trust the US or any Government... You still don't understand do you or maybe you need pictures - I don't know - but to be honest I'm not surprised it's too complicated for you.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're a flag waving 'merican patriot. Nor does it mean that the long overdue recent revelations are some big surprise.
There are two broad types of the people in the world, the sheeple and the leaders. Some people just choose a different shepherd to most. Some people, like me, don't have a shepherd..
Look I'm really sorry but I'm not great at drawing, should I try and make some sort of picture for you? I'm not really sure how can help you understand but I want to try and help :-)

a reply to: Zaphod58

sounds like the perfect entry point to water when diving. so my original overlay was more akin ,,confusing Zaphod.. you don't have an extra head and arm do you ?

funbox

a reply to: funbox

No but when it comes to aviation I'm the king of what most people would consider useless knowledge.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I would feel comfortable flying with you anywhere....as long as you are the pilot...

I used to play golf with a guy that was a pilot and he cheated like I had never seen...

Made me wonder what went on in the cockpit....

lol

a reply to: oxidadoblanco

The building was designed under the pretense of a floor failing. The floor below had to be able to accept that failure and not compromise the rest of the structure.

You are totally wrong about your assumption.
All the floors were suspended trusses. Attached only at the exterior and the inner core.
There was no structural elements between the ends.
Plus all the floor trusses for each floor were identical.
Meaning each floor could hold the same amount of 'live' and 'static' loads.
So if you overloaded floor 80 to the point of failure the debris would also overload 79. And so on.

That's one problem the conspiracy side keeps overlooking.
WTC 1&2 were not constructed the old fashioned way of the giant erector set of steel lattice work.
They were a tube inside a tube design.
With cheap lightweight trusses suspended between the tubes.

The inner core couldn't stand 110 stories by itself.
The exterior couldn't stand 110 stories by itself.
But when you braced both with the floor trusses the building was sound.
Just don't damage too many of the three elements.

911 is why there will never be another tube in tube skyscraper built.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: oxidadoblanco

The building was designed under the pretense of a floor failing. The floor below had to be able to accept that failure and not compromise the rest of the structure.

You are totally wrong about your assumption.
All the floors were suspended trusses. Attached only at the exterior and the inner core.
There was no structural elements between the ends.
Plus all the floor trusses for each floor were identical.
Meaning each floor could hold the same amount of 'live' and 'static' loads.
So if you overloaded floor 80 to the point of failure the debris would also overload 79. And so on.

I think some people get their physics education for how the WTC towers fell from Jenga.
Mind boggling really, you can see the floors collapsing but they think it's explosives.
On the close up of the corner of WTC2 as the collapse initiates you can see one of the existing smoke plumes turn into a famed 'squib' as the air is compressed even, yet all other ones like it are mistimed explosives - more clues for the Scooby gang.

a reply to: samkent

No..YOU are totally wrong with your assumption...

The "live load" floor loads were designed to have the floor above them to fail...thus leading to a "non cataclysmic" failure.

The "suspended trusses" design was based upon the "load" of the inner columns...

If all the floor loads somehow failed...the inner columns would have stood upright...That was the basic design of the WTC's...

Go look at the blueprints (they are online) and notice that the "outer" integrity of the building was NOT dependent on the inner columns...

What you are saying is...If I took a bowling ball the size of the top floors of the WTC and dropped it at 100 ft from the top of the building, the entire structure would collapse....It doesn't happen like that...Every floor is designed to uphold the structural integrity of the floor above it...If that was not the intended design, then the building would have fallen from the shear weight of the floors above it..

Forget for a minute that a plane hit the building....What could cause absolute shear malfunction of all the design?

In your estimate, any concrete building that is reinforced with steel, is susceptible to being compromised by fire....Have you ever thrown a can of beer (filled with gasoline) at a concrete abutment? Like a highway overpass column made of concrete with rebar in it? It does NOTHING...You barely make a scar on the concrete....

The only thing I have ever seen that will compromise concrete is to make some gunpowder on your own..
You mix equal parts of Saltpeter, sulper and charcoal and crush it up and put it in some newspaper...Puut it on a concrete pad and it WILL eat up the concrete...

As far as melting steel, if you have never used an Ox/ac torch, then you might not be the best source on what heat does to metal...When using a torch, it takes a while to heat up a piece of rebar so you can actually cut through it. We now have things called plasma torches that zip thru a piece of metal faster than you can imagine...I once cut out a "Budweiser" emblem on a beer can with a plasma torch....

Let me ask you one question....

If the WTC towers actually were compromised by the structural integrity of the buildings, then why do we see "ejacta" of solid concrete coming out from the buildings? If you dropped a 10kg ball on top of the buildings you would have a total disassociation of the strucural steel implementing into a downward force that would make the buildings stop their downward force dure to the structural integrity of the adjoining floors below them.....

A marble will not create enough force to demolish a tower made of flour....it is a proven fact....

As far as building 7...who knows? I wasn't there and I have heard that there was the possibilty of "explosions"....

I do not have the answers but I do have some questions

lol

originally posted by: oxidadoblanco
a reply to: samkent

No..YOU are totally wrong with your assumption...

The "live load" floor loads were designed to have the floor above them to fail...thus leading to a "non cataclysmic" failure.

The "suspended trusses" design was based upon the "load" of the inner columns...

If all the floor loads somehow failed...the inner columns would have stood upright...That was the basic design of the WTC's...

Go look at the blueprints (they are online) and notice that the "outer" integrity of the building was NOT dependent on the inner columns...

What you are saying is...If I took a bowling ball the size of the top floors of the WTC and dropped it at 100 ft from the top of the building, the entire structure would collapse....It doesn't happen like that...Every floor is designed to uphold the structural integrity of the floor above it...If that was not the intended design, then the building would have fallen from the shear weight of the floors above it..

Forget for a minute that a plane hit the building....What could cause absolute shear malfunction of all the design?

In your estimate, any concrete building that is reinforced with steel, is susceptible to being compromised by fire....Have you ever thrown a can of beer (filled with gasoline) at a concrete abutment? Like a highway overpass column made of concrete with rebar in it? It does NOTHING...You barely make a scar on the concrete....

The only thing I have ever seen that will compromise concrete is to make some gunpowder on your own..
You mix equal parts of Saltpeter, sulper and charcoal and crush it up and put it in some newspaper...Puut it on a concrete pad and it WILL eat up the concrete...

As far as melting steel, if you have never used an Ox/ac torch, then you might not be the best source on what heat does to metal...When using a torch, it takes a while to heat up a piece of rebar so you can actually cut through it. We now have things called plasma torches that zip thru a piece of metal faster than you can imagine...I once cut out a "Budweiser" emblem on a beer can with a plasma torch....

Let me ask you one question....

If the WTC towers actually were compromised by the structural integrity of the buildings, then why do we see "ejacta" of solid concrete coming out from the buildings? If you dropped a 10kg ball on top of the buildings you would have a total disassociation of the strucural steel implementing into a downward force that would make the buildings stop their downward force dure to the structural integrity of the adjoining floors below them.....

A marble will not create enough force to demolish a tower made of flour....it is a proven fact....

As far as building 7...who knows? I wasn't there and I have heard that there was the possibilty of "explosions"....

I do not have the answers but I do have some questions

lol

You're in luck with your questions, because Sam has all the answers. All he needs to do is reference his bible of outstanding knowledge on the subject, including the flawless Official 9/11 report, the wonderfully unbiased Popular Mechanics article, or the incredibally in depth and comprehensive NIST report.

Yeah, there is a hint of sarcasm in my response. Lol.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
You're in luck with your questions, because Sam has all the answers. All he needs to do is reference his bible of outstanding knowledge on the subject, including the flawless Official 9/11 report, the wonderfully unbiased Popular Mechanics article, or the incredibally in depth and comprehensive NIST report.

Yeah, there is a hint of sarcasm in my response. Lol.

I think you meant the laws of physics and a knowledge of structural engineering there actually.
You'll get there, I have faith in you.

Yeah, there is a hint of sarcasm in my response too. Lol. But to be clear it was only in my second sentence.

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: oxidadoblanco

The building was designed under the pretense of a floor failing. The floor below had to be able to accept that failure and not compromise the rest of the structure.

You are totally wrong about your assumption.
All the floors were suspended trusses. Attached only at the exterior and the inner core.
There was no structural elements between the ends.
Plus all the floor trusses for each floor were identical.
Meaning each floor could hold the same amount of 'live' and 'static' loads.
So if you overloaded floor 80 to the point of failure the debris would also overload 79. And so on.

I think some people get their physics education for how the WTC towers fell from Jenga.
Mind boggling really, you can see the floors collapsing but they think it's explosives.
On the close up of the corner of WTC2 as the collapse initiates you can see one of the existing smoke plumes turn into a famed 'squib' as the air is compressed even, yet all other ones like it are mistimed explosives - more clues for the Scooby gang.

Nope. Smoke plumes were shooting out 15-20 stories above the impact crater at the collapse initiation.

Find video of the west wall of the south tour. I believe FOIA #25 has it. Check it out. Air pressure would not account for it. There were huge sections of wall missing at the impacted floors so even if the plumes above started after collapse initiation (which it didn't, plumes came first as video evidence proves) there would been plenty of room for the compressed air on the impacted floors to escape.

So the flame on the exterior is the fire getting fuel from oxygen? Why is that argument not used in the WTC 7 videos. OS'ers use the flames that are close to windows and oxygen as evidence to "intense heat" but as you admitted on WTC 2 it is just fire finding oxygen. So I have to ask if maybe you are cheery-picking what ever suits you and your pre conceived pro government, MSM friendly notions.

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
You're in luck with your questions, because Sam has all the answers. All he needs to do is reference his bible of outstanding knowledge on the subject, including the flawless Official 9/11 report, the wonderfully unbiased Popular Mechanics article, or the incredibally in depth and comprehensive NIST report.

Yeah, there is a hint of sarcasm in my response. Lol.

I think you meant the laws of physics and a knowledge of structural engineering there actually.
You'll get there, I have faith in you.

Yeah, there is a hint of sarcasm in my response too. Lol. But to be clear it was only in my second sentence.

No, don't put words in my mouth please, that is not at all what I meant.

If I was commenting on the laws of physics being violated, then I would have mentioned the official story on Building 7. For one, it is impossible for freefall to happen (2.25 seconds) unless the mass below it was removed. Your official story causes one to suspend all laws of physics, to make your ridiculous story work.

By the way, thank you for your vote of confidence. You should know, however, that I have little faith in you, so long as you remain intellectually dishonest. I will leave it at that.

a reply to: oxidadoblanco

Another thing Bruce...

Just sit back for a moment and try and compose this scenario in your "wildest" visions...

How did 19 arabs (i am a racist now) conduct a military exercise that was so perfect that they even fooled NORAD
and they KNEW that somehow the WTC were the absolute target that would get Amurica to go to her knees..

Why not the Smithsonian?
Why not the Whitehouse?
Why not the IRS building?
Why not AREA 51?

How do you pick a target as a terrorist? Seems like Dik Cheney can tell you that ...

How in the hell do FBI agents find passports in the street of new york when they can't even find one of the
"alleged" terrorists in the days before 911?
You might want to just try a little common sense test that I found a while back...It works for me...

Who was there?
Who saw it?
Who wrote it down?

Nowadays we have to ask....
Who had a iphone?
Who filmed it?
Who cgi'ed stuff?

Good luck on your outlook on life....

lol

a reply to: samkent

You are wrong...

The LIVE load of each floor was calculated by the "FLOOR ABOVE AND THE FLOOR BELOW"...

There is NO WAY that one floor failure could result in a total collapse of the entire system..

Cmon...Give the engineers a little love and let them know that one wacko couldn't take down the buildings with a phuckin pipe bomb....

I ate breakfast on the WTC top Story one time...All I had to do was bust open an alka selzer and the whole thing would come down?

Dang...............Coulda been the ruler of the world.......

lol

a reply to: oxidadoblanco

NORAD is fairly easy to fool when it comes to internal security. All their radar data comes from FAA sources, unless the aircraft is near a military base with its own radar.

Now if they had been on international flights coming in it would have been much harder to do.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The FACT that people were traversing up and down the stairwells is proof enough that something is not right with the OS...

How did people get injured in the "lobby" of the WTC when a plane hit the 74th floor?

Do you even understand what it would take for a plane to hit a building and cause casualties on the lower levels?

People on the ground heard ""explosions"......A plane causes ONE explosion...Get over it.. The OS is bs...

lol