The Hard Truth Of September Eleventh.

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
I got this from another forum, thought it was an interesting bunch of points I wanted to share with you: Also here is a link to something a lot of folks don't know about.

www.prisonplanet.com...



Point 23
Construction on the towers, north and south began september 11 1971. At 1350 feet they were two of the tallest most famous buildings on earth. A fact most people don't know is they were engineered like proverbial brick outhouses. They were overengineered to withstand major winds and hits from large airliners.


Actually, recent calculations using modern computer analysis techniques have indicated that they were in fact under designed to handle the wind loads they they would have been subjected to.


They were built with 47 enormous steel core columns. Together with 236 large exterior steel columns that were welded and bolted together with steel plates. Further, there were steel trusses which cris-crossed making a mesh that connected every other exterior column. Plus there was diagonal bracing and steel rods connecting the trusses. There were also corrogated pans with poured concrete on every floor and all of this was anchored in a very deep and heavy foundation.

Which means nothing. That doesn't meant that the bolted sections were not too weakly coupled, or the trusses were too long to handle the extreme conditions of 9/11.


Point 24
The buildings were architechturally designed to absorb energy and to sway in storms.

It would be kind of hard to do that if the core core columns were encased in concrete, wouldn't it TX?


According to witnesses in the buildings near where the planes hit, the towers swayed for a few seconds as intended. Other witnesses in the area said that the noise and blast was significant but the tremor felt at the time of contact was minimal.


Wow, I've read eye witness accounts from people who survived from above where the plane hit in the second tower. They reported that the the sway was enormous and that the twisting effect of the impact broke walls, popped doors, and caused the ceilings to fall. That doesn't sound that minimal to me. Also the jet fuel spilled into the building and down the shafts. The resulting explosions caused huge amounts of damage.


Point 25
Fact. No steel structure building in new york, the united states or in the world has ever come down due to fire. In the last 100 years, dozens of steel buildings have caught on fire and burned for long periods of time and not come down.
No structure was built the same as the WTC towers. The only close example is the Empire State building, but that is so different, structurally, from the WTC towers that it isn't a valid comparison.


A good example is the Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, a 38 story office building that in 1991 had a hot fire. It burned on 8 floors for 19 hours and theee firefighters died but it did not come close to bringing down the building.

Actually it came very close to collapse. Again, not only was it different structurally, but that building was not nearly the size of the WTC towers and had only a fraction of the fire load per floor.



In contrast, the world trade center north tower fire lasted 1 hour and 43 mintues and the world trade center south tower lasted 56 mintues. They both burned significant portions of rubble, sheat rock, carpet, furniture, etc producing lots of black smoke indicating they were burning in efficiently and were relatively cool fires.


I think that is has been demonstrated time and again, that the color of the smoke has nothing to do with the temperature of the fire.


Point 26
A: Steel melts at 2700 degress Farenheit. B: Jet fuel when mixed in precise proportions with will burn briefly at 1800 degrees farenheit. C: because of the debris, carpeting, sheat rock, furniture, concrete, aluminum, etc and lack of oxygen, the fire at the world trade center probably burned at 1200 to 1300 degrees farenheit.


Once again, the steel would have softened to the point of failure LONG before the melting temperature was reached. This has been stated over and over again. Why does the author keep repeating it?


Point 27
It must also be remebered that a significant portion of the jet fuel exploded outside of the buildings (i.e.south tower).

I disaggree. If you claim that the fuel in the right wing exploded outside the south tower, then half the fuel (the left wing) would have remained in the building.

Do you have any idea how much heat is released by just a few hundred gallons of jet fuel, let alone a couple of thousand? Put it this way, there was enough energy in that fuel to fly the plane 1000 miles across the country.


The exterior columns were exposed to the air on three sides and would dissipate heat at a fast rate. And the beams and columns were coated with fire proofing materials.


The problem is, when the floor trusses began to sag, the direction of the loads on the columns changed from downward to inward. They were not designed to handle that change.

As for the fireproofing, it was a loose friable material, easliy dislodged by hand preasure. The impact would have knocked a large percentage of it off. (or soaked it in jet fuel
)


Point 28
The official story is the buildings came down at point of contact because the intensity of the fire caused the trusses to push out the columns. Yet, if one views the wholecreated in the north tower by the plane, there are onlyrelatively small fires. And the fires must not be excessive because you can see two people standing and staring out near the opening.

Actually the trusses sagged, pulling the columns inward. This is clearly visible in a number of the photographs taken just before the collapse.

As for the temperature of the fire, it took time for the fires to progress over the entire floor. The people near the openings were not there for the whole time.


Point 29
The top section of the south tower began to tilt at approx 9:59 am. At this moment, a large cloud of grey dust suddenly puffed out of the building. The 35 stories of the top section continued to tip to 23 degrees past vertical. At this point, the upper segment was hanging over the edge by approx 65 feet. In frame by fame pictures, one can see the concentric and uniform mushrooming grey cloud rapidly expand to envelp the building. As this is happening, one can see debris being blown away from the building with an extremely powerful blast.

Yep, air pressure will do that. The top essentially dropped down inside the building envelope of the lower floors like a giant piston.



The overhanging upper section was then mysteriously shrouded and never seen again.




Then the whole building came straight down. With an incredibly fast 10.4 seconds the once might tower was reduced to a pile of totally pulverized remains.

Gravity, It's the law!


Government story is that this building experienced a compression or a pancake demoltion caused by weakened trusses and weight from above. At first this explanation sounds plausible, especially because this is what the television reports have told us time and time again. But common sense would indicate that the center of gravity of the top section was not centered over the lower section.


Yes it was. The center of gravity (and not just the top of tht top portion) would have had to have moved over 100 feet laterally before it was no longer over the bottom portion.


Thus, if there was a compression demolition, it would not be uniform because the center of gravity was considerably off center. Secondly, the severed top section that was tilting very much over the edge would fall somewhat independently. Third, this section would fall at a fast rate than the anchored lower section because it would not meet the resistance of the intact lower section. Fourth, the top and lower sections would break into pieces, they would not pulverize. None of these four things happened.


I'd really like to see his justification of how the the building would have broken “ into pieces, they would not pulverize.”


Point 30
The complete demolition of the North Tower took only 8.1 seconds. The north tower came neatly down and it's remains were equally powdered.

Since the dust and debris that did fall outside the building envelope would have been in free fall and would have obscured the actual time that it took for the top portion of the building to hit the ground after it started to fall, I would like to know exactly how the author of this came up with those times.


Point 31
Facts are very stubborn things.
So, apparently is the author's ignorance.
Again, the dust and debris that did get knocked out of the building during the initial phase of the collapse would have fallen in a free fall outside the structure! Since this debris obscured the building behind it, there is no real way to tell if the fall of that part took 10 seconds or 12 or even 15.


Point 32
Remember the grey could that concentrically blasted out and down the imploding buildings and chased thousands of new yorkers down the street while covering the area with a sand like substance? That substance was cement and other material that was crystalized. Could the blast of jet fuel create this crystalization? No. At full blast jet fuel only expands at 208 ft. per second. Could a compression demolition do this? No because there is not enough latent energy.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

” there is not enough latent energy.”



TX, do you really agree with this statement?


The cement would crack and break but not pulverize.

And what does the author of this tripe offer to suport this contention?
Light weight concrete of the sort used in this building is not the same as the sidewalk slab in front of your house.


The only way the molecular composition of these materials could be so scrambled is if there were small cacle nuclear devices or there were high tech explosives.

Wow, so it was a nuke?





Since there is no reading of radioactive activity that can be confirmed, modern explosives are the logical choice. High tech explosives such as rtx or c4 can expand at over 1000 ft per second and create extremely hot temperatures.


They also create very loud bangs.


Modern explosives could cause the crystalization of the building materials, while creating a vacuum that could pull down the buildings at a faster rate than normal speed and leave a residue of extremely high temperatures.
What a vacuum? How does an explosive that expands a 1000 ft per second create a vacuum?



Okay, That is enough. Nothing in that post is even close to reality.





posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   


What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.


source

what do you think of that, howard?


Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.




posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Billybob, I dealt with that in another post.

basically the author of that makes several mistakes in his calculations.

The biggest and most critical mistake is that he fails to understand that the adiabatic flame temperature is based on the fuel and air being at a constant temperature (20 C). In a fire situation like this, the fuel and air absorb the heat released and increase the output temperature. He also miscalculated the heat absorbed by the products of the compustion reaction. He adds the numbers in twice, thus reducing the amount of heat available to heat the surounding building components.

This is how blast furnaces work. In addition, you have to consider the fuel load from 40,000 square feet of office space. The caloric value of those thousands of pounds of paper and plastic are actually close to jet fuel.

It is also a bit ludicrous to expect that the fire heated the entire floor evenly. It did not. That is intuitively obvious. How could it? This, if the fire was concentrated on a few selected areas, then the heat absorbed by those areas would have been very high, as the author of that so ably demonstrates.

Thus, instead of proving his point, he in fact proves the opposite!

Since it would be stupid to expect the fire to heat the entire floor evenly, the portions that were heated must have absorbed enough heat to soften and weaken them.


[edit on 25-4-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
from what i understand from reading his post(all of it), there were survivors who actually were burned by jet fuel. the heat from the jet fuel explosion is described by the witness as a short blast of intense heat. 15 to 20 seconds!

from what i understand from reading it, as well, the calculations used were based on an ideal combustion(which didn't happen) and with no energy release from venting(which did happen) and an ideal concentration(all fuel on one floor, pooled) which also didn't happen. the calculation still comes up FAR short of the temperature needed to even weaken steel.

elsewhere in the world, someone did a calculation of the energy sink, and found that the cloud of dust expanded about TEN TIMES as much as the potential energy of collapse would have spread it. we'll have to rely on 'the happy goat' for the 'truth', though.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
from what i understand from reading his post(all of it), there were survivors who actually were burned by jet fuel. the heat from the jet fuel explosion is described by the witness as a short blast of intense heat. 15 to 20 seconds!


I hope you are not trying to suggest that all of the fuel burned up in 15 seconds.


from what i understand from reading it, as well, the calculations used were based on an ideal combustion(which didn't happen) and with no energy release from venting(which did happen) and an ideal concentration(all fuel on one floor, pooled) which also didn't happen. the calculation still comes up FAR short of the temperature needed to even weaken steel.


Then tell me, How is it that the steel of the Windsor tower was so severely impacted even though there was no jet fuel in that fire?

Don’t forget that the towers also had 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. Assuming a light fuel load of about 4 p/sf, the total fuel load from the office materials would have been equivalent to around 160,000 lbs of fuel

As for the combustion being less then ideal, that is not true either. To begin with the concept of an “ideal” combustion has to do with standardized values and temperatures as used in calculations. No fire is actually “ideal.” On the other hand, the amount of energy released by a given reaction is fixed. That is a fact. The total amount of heat energy in 1000 gallons of kerosene is about 135 million BTUs.


elsewhere in the world, someone did a calculation of the energy sink, and found that the cloud of dust expanded about TEN TIMES as much as the potential energy of collapse would have spread it. we'll have to rely on 'the happy goat' for the 'truth', though.


I’ve seen those so-called calculations and have found them to be heavily flawed with too many unjustified assumptions.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I hope you are not trying to suggest that all of the fuel burned up in 15 seconds.




Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the first aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."



i'm trying to suggest that i read this at the link i provided.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Hr, just curious.

When you say."Then tell me, How is it that the steel of the Windsor tower was so severely impacted even though there was no jet fuel in that fire?"

Your leaving out the time variable.. Did you forget how LONG and how FURIOUS the Windsor tower burned? (Especially in relation to the WTC) You need to take into account ALL variables before you make assertions. Time is a critical variable in any fire. Hint: Time and a fire's intensity (Along with heat/temperature) are inexorably intertwined. The longer a fire burns unabated the hotter and more intense it's going to get. (Fuel feed is also an obvious variable) I'll compare the cores of the WTC and Windsor tower but I will not compare the fires.. They were not the same, jet fuel or not. sorry.

AND

"The buildings were architechturally designed to absorb energy and to sway in storms."

And you said.. "It would be kind of hard to do that if the core core columns were encased in concrete, wouldn't it TX?"

Umm.. The Windsor tower was also designed to "sway" to a certain extent and IT had "concrete collumns" in the core. (Meeting YOUR criteria).. How IS that possible with "concrete collumns" in the Windsor tower?? (And please don't tell me it's because it's not as tall) I'll let you explain that one.. Do you really know as much about high rise construction as you lead us to believe? I'm no building engineer but give me break.


Oh and also:

Point 27
It must also be remebered that a significant portion of the jet fuel exploded outside of the buildings (i.e.south tower).

And you said:

"I disaggree. If you claim that the fuel in the right wing exploded outside the south tower, then half the fuel (the left wing) would have remained in the building. "

I don't agree with the assertion that the right wing exploded outside the south towere but that's ludicrous HR, The WHOLE plane hit the building and "went into it" so its silly say that one wing went through and one didn't. If you watch the video of the south tower hit you will notice that it's close to the edge but not "outside" of it. Also. It OBVIOUS and SELF EVIDENT that a WHOLE BUNCH of stuff came out the opposite side of where the plane struck the building along with a HUGE fireball. (GEE.. i wonder what that fireball was fueled by and it happened OUTSIDE the building.) Even in the north tower hit, I doubt the "core" of the building slowed much of the plane down. Shredding it up? You bet but holding back a bunch of stuff? Watch the video and YOU be the judge. You can't honestly sit there and expect me to believe that a whole lot of fuel got left in the building. Think about it: how fast were those planes going again when they hit the building? I doubt very much of the plane stayed in the building. I'm sure if you will do a little homework you will find that a whole buch of that plane was found all over the place and it wasn't IN the tower. (This really explains the very important question as to WHY the fire in the WTC didn't get as bad as it SHOULD have, even in the short amount of time that it "had". If the fire was as bad in the WTC as some of you say it was it would have been OBVIOUS from the outside but it WASNT. THIS simply can not be argued by any sane person) Did you also forget the people who got burned on the GROUND?? I wonder how that happened..I don't think anyone can really prove how much jet fuel was left in the building after the crashes due to obvious reasons. We will just have to leave that to the self evident and common sense which apparently some folks don't have a lot of. (I say that in good spirit)









That's all I want to rebut for now..




[edit on 26-4-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Sorry it tok so long to get back to this thread.

Tx, once again, I have to point out that the two buildings are totally different. The WTC tower floor plans were four times the size of the Windsor building. This makes a huge difference.

The Windsor tower building was a “normal
fire without jet fuel, or additional ventilation from impact holes.

Nor did the Windsor tower have the tons of combustible aircraft components piled up in huge heaps, and soaked with jet fuel.

But the key difference is the size and aspect ratios of the floor plans of each of the buildings They were significantly different, that I do not think that you can apply a one to one comparison between the two.

Oh, and take another look at the videos of the collapses, note that just before the buildings fell, the fires had traveled quite far up the interior of the buildings. Several of the upper floors well above the impact points were totally engulfed in flames. Since there was no significant flame propagation on the outside of the buildings, that means that the fires were traveling up the core shafts, which were breached by the impact. Thus, intensity of the fire is partially obscured from the ground, but that doesn’t make it any less hot.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
No wierdy.. Your the one that's sad, but I digress. I don't want to stoop to the flame troll level. There are a lot of folks who just can't see the obvious but that is their loss and I suspect you are going to find yourself in the minority here. Moving on. Building 7 is of course just the tip of the ice berg.. Lest we not forget the Pentagon. Will be starting a thread on that soon.



Shouldn't you be watching for chemtrails or something?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Wow... this thread took off.

Anyways, I am not about to argue engineering logistics with anyone. My first point is this - no one will ever know what the truth of this matter because the buildings are completely obliterated. All the information about this is pure speculation. No one knows what the fire temperatures were, how much fuel burned, what the impacts of these unkown temperatures would have on the structure itself - because, no one was there with the tools to measure these values - and no one has ever seen a plane of that size, hit a building that large because it has never happened. In my opinion we will just never know either way. All that's left of it was sold to China for scrap metal, right? So we can't even analyze that.

All you can really do is a choose a side, or not choose a side.

When 9/11 happened I went crazy - it was as if some trigger switched on inside of me, and I went on a four week fact finding hunt that led me in so many directions. For a while I was big on the conspiracy side, and to an extent still find the event leaves too many questions.

The only thing I can say is that if the building didn't come down with explosives or whatever, and its collapse was purely due to the planes and their fuel, their still is another possibility... that it was left to happen, ie. no intervention. This, if there was to be a conspiracy seems more likely... maybe they had no idea the buildings would come down... they'd have had enough to go start their war just with the planes hitting the WTC.

Some interesting additional facts...for sh*ts n' giggles.

Paul Vreeland. Google it. He knew about the attacks - how and why. Very wierd.

CBC did a news story (not fifth estate, but on the NATIONAL) that spoke of a manifesto written by Rumsfeld and others describing in detail, how the USA could expand its power should it be attacked by foreign terrorists. It was written in the 90's... that's all I know, if anyone has more info on this lemme know (this is all from my head). It was wierd when it ran... and it never ran again.

I was dating a girl who's dad was high level military during all of this. On the day it happened he called her and told her that there were 12 planes airborne at the time... I dunno if that means anything, but she told me not to tell people this fact... but she dumped me and moved in with some other guy, so I could care less now!!


That's it... and remember kids, play nice.





[edit on 12-5-2005 by robinm]

[edit on 12-5-2005 by robinm]

[edit on 12-5-2005 by robinm]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Here's a question that seems relevent: are skyscrapers built to last forever? If so, would not aging buildings be seen as a big liability? Do architects think about the end of their buildings as well as their beginnings?

Were the Twin Towers built with their eventual demolition in mind? Were the "inner cores" part of a plan for eventual safe implosion? Guideposts for what the architect knew would be an eventual need to replace the buildings like all other buildings sooner or later are replaced? Was "safe eventual implosion" BUILT INTO the design? Such plans even if either routine or groundbreaking, would be seen as "depressing" and not much publicized during their construction in the '70s.

If so, then an UNPLANNED collapse might appear very similar to a PLANNED demolition. It might be very difficult to tell even to a trained demolitionist watching on TV.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I'm no expert, but it would seem to me, they would plan for every scenario - from large airplanes hitting them, to catastrophically large winds and eventual implosion.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
the eye witness said 'there was an intense burst of heat, about 15 to 20 seconds'.

picture throwing a water balloon at five hundred miles an hour into an immovable object. does the water 'pool' and 'soak', or does it atomize?
a little note about 'inertia'. objects in motion tend to remain in motion, until operated on by an external force.
so, we have these giant kerosene sacs smashing into the towers. the giant fireball seen following the impact is OBVIOUSLY the atomised jet fuel being spontaneaously combusted(and, a great deal of that occurring outside of the building)., ie., yes, howard, MOST of the jet fuel combusted in the initial fireball. it's obvious, and it's on film.

how do you explain the boiler room explosion in the basement of one tower BEFORE A PLANE HIT? there is testimony from a custodian stating this happened. he said there was nothing but rubble left. ever read that, howard?

notice also, that the quote from the official report says the jet fuel's effects were 'minimal'.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Petroleum
About 17,000 BTUs per pound.

(BTU: heat needed to heat 1 lb. water 1 degree F.)



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
The problem I have with reports on what would happen if a plane hit, is on what are they based? How has this been studied? What about an angled hit? Doesnt that weaken the structure even more?

Besides, all the theories dont explain the biggest question posed...WHY? There isnt a reason. They could do whatever they wanted before that. It just doesnt make sense to kill 3000 people.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
how do you explain the boiler room explosion in the basement of one tower BEFORE A PLANE HIT? there is testimony from a custodian stating this happened. he said there was nothing but rubble left. ever read that, howard?


Billybob, I think you are talking about this article.

Can you read it and tell me where it talks about a "boiler room explosion in the basement of one tower BEFORE A PLANE HIT"? I can't seem to find that part.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
After my post "Do the Math" I figured instead of a little lightweight back-of-napkin calculations I should do more. Here's what I got:

At least 16,700 gals. capacity of Boeing 767. Kerosene has 126,000 btus per gal. EQUALS 2,104,200,000 BTUs (20,413 BTUs per lb - I guessed 17,000)

0.118 cal/g° C specific heat of steel, meaning a pound of steel will actually heat up 8.47 degrees F. for each BTU.

Meaning that all that fuel was enough to raise the temperature of 2,104,200 lbs. of steel (1052 Tons) up to 1000 degrees F.

If it all burned. If only 30% contributed to steel weakening, that's just a mere 315 tons of steel heated to 1000 degrees F. Or, 393 tons heated to 800 F.

Add to that the combustibles in the furnishings, etc. I don't seem to have to invoke any outside explanations for the collapses to be explained.


[edit on 5/13/2005 by Noumenon]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noumenon
Add to that the combustibles in the furnishings, etc. I don't seem to have to invoke any outside explanations for the collapses to be explained.
[edit on 5/13/2005 by Noumenon]


Noumenon, can you speak english for those of us who are math impaired?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
EastCoastKid, what i think Noumenon is saying is that there was easily enough fuel in the building to weaken the steel sufficiently to cause the building to collapse.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Noumenon, can you speak english for those of us who are math impaired?


393 tons of steel heated to 800 F. Probably more.

By the way. I'm not making too many conclusions here except that theoretically I don't need to invoke hidden explosives. I, like many people, believe there is a lot (understated, aren't I) that is currently unexplained.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join