Mind Explaining These Things To Me?, page 3

Originally posted by Shroomery

So the huge clouds of black smoke that stayed in the atmosphere above NYC for days are not the slightest hint of big fires?

No they are not, they are exactly the opposite, if you would've done some research you would know this. Thick black smoke means there is not enough oxygen to fuel the fire.

There are numerous photos of major flames exiting the exterior of the building. That is a fully developed fire. Yes there was a lot of smoke, but there was also 5 or 6 floors on fire at the same time.

And what about the people showing IN those impact holes, people who are alive. How did they get there/survive there, if those floors were so badly damaged that they were unable to support the upper floors.

The conspiracy theorists like to show the picture of the woman standing near the impact hole and claim that that is proof that the fires were not that hot. What they don’t tell you is that that photo was taken shortly after the impact, before the fires had a chance to develop. Also, they fail to reconcile the fact that there was enough oxygen for this woman to breathe with the claim that there was not enough oxygen for the fire. Some people who claim to be firefighters never tell you about the phenomena of flashover. That is if there were compartments in the building with limited oxygen, what happens when the windows finally break from the heat, or a wall fails, a floor falls, etc. They never talk about the temperatures that a post flashover fire can reach.

Not to forget that almost all the fuel from the second plane exploded outside the tower, however, this one fell first.

Not all of it. The fuel in the left wing would have fallen down the elevator shafts and core chases. (see the GIF, below).

But you know what, just for the heck of it, lets assume there were fires, even then that would not make those towers collapse because pancaking, the necessary procedure for a tower such as this to collapse straight down, is simply impossible with a building that is engineerded like the WTC.

And you know this, how? Where did you get your engineering degree? What is you structural engineers license number? Please explain how the WTC was “engineerded” so that the “colums” would not have failed?

Again you asume that they created a lot of damage.
What you see is a hole in the outer structure, not the supporting structure wich are the colums in the center. Colums wich can not be destroyed by the fires like you think.
I've already said that these towers were built for impacts like this many times over, a single impact, and especially one not touching the central support columns, should not let the building collapse. Especially not after burning mildly for less than an hour.

Maybe these can help you visualize the damage cause by the airplane as it struck the building.


As you can see, the core area would have sustained massive damage as well.

What you see is a hole in the outer structure, not the supporting structure wich are the colums in the center.

The gravity loads of the building were distributed about evenly between the core columns and the exterior columns. In other words, the exterior columns supported about half the loads, and the core columns supported the other half.

Is this a “mild” fire?





Also, perhaps you can tell me what happens to the gravity loads that these columns normally carry after they start to buckle inward like that (79th through 81st floors)

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The conspiracy theorists like to show the picture of the woman standing near the impact hole and claim that that is proof that the fires were not that hot. What they don’t tell you is that that photo was taken shortly after the impact, before the fires had a chance to develop. Also, they fail to reconcile the fact that there was enough oxygen for this woman to breathe with the claim that there was not enough oxygen for the fire. Some people who claim to be firefighters never tell you about the phenomena of flashover.

It's funny how you twist and turn to shove the guilt on someone else then the real enemy.
It is not just ONE woman standing there, and the fact that it is straight after the impact is even more troubling, cause you know what, that would mean that the fires weren't even that big in the beginning when all the kerosine was there.

You're telling me that the concrete and all the other (mostly inflammable) office materials starting burning hotter and hotter, and that eventually made the central support collums brake ? Or the kerosine magically re-ignited when the people in the opening dissapeared, setting those floors ablaze again ?

You have no idea how crooket your story is because the fact is that THE FIRES WERE NEVER GIGANTIG, BIG, or whatever you want to call them.
Show me some pictures goddamnit, you see flames yeah, no wonder, a plane crashed into it!
Now compare this fire to other fires and tell me that this ain't mild.

Not to forget that almost all the fuel from the second plane exploded outside the tower, however, this one fell first.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not all of it. The fuel in the left wing would have fallen down the elevator shafts and core chases. (see the GIF, below).

Yeah, quite the GIF you got there, I think I can whip that up in about 10 minutes too, although it's a very skewed picture of what really happend.
The second plane doesn't even exit the tower at the right side like it clearly does on ALL the video footage. Nice try though.

But you know what, just for the heck of it, lets assume there were fires, even then that would not make those towers collapse because pancaking, the necessary procedure for a tower such as this to collapse straight down, is simply impossible with a building that is engineerded like the WTC.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And you know this, how? Where did you get your engineering degree? What is you structural engineers license number? Please explain how the WTC was “engineerded” so that the “colums” would not have failed?

I suggest you look at the links I gave to you earlier, or maybe you can just google for 9/11 pancaking theory.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Maybe these can help you visualize the damage cause by the airplane as it struck the building.

As you can see, the core area would have sustained massive damage as well.

No, you assume this.. why ? Because of that gif ?
This is why YOU are the conspiracy theorist. You assume it were terrorists, however there's no evidence, you also assume that a plane would mean alot of destruction. However, everyone knows that these buildings were BUILT TO WITHSTAND SUCH AN ATTACK MANY TIMES OVER.
A plane is lightweight, if it flew into 42 support columns after penetrating trough a wall, it wouldn't be able to knock many of them over because most of the penetrating force would scatter on impact.

What you see is a hole in the outer structure, not the supporting structure wich are the colums in the center.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The gravity loads of the building were distributed about evenly between the core columns and the exterior columns. In other words, the exterior columns supported about half the loads, and the core columns supported the other half.

Where did you hear that rubbish ?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Is this a “mild” fire?

YES THIS IS A MILD FIRE, are you blind ?

This is a inferno like you hope to portray the WTC fire :
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

and here's some more about why the fire would never alter the structural and supporting capacity of the steel :
rense.com...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Also, perhaps you can tell me what happens to the gravity loads that these columns normally carry after they start to buckle inward like that (79th through 81st floors)

You're talking about the OUTER skeleton of the WTC this does not function to keep the building standing.
This is exactly the reason why the building could never come down like it did cause the CENTER supports it, not the outer walls.

I would like to point out that the follow graphics..



...have absolutely nothing to support them save the directions the planes hit the towers. It is not known how much damage was dealt to the North Tower's columns, and the South Tower's were nearly completely missed. Those pics are misleading to say the least, Howard, and unless you want us to start resorting to totally bs information, maybe you can do us the courtesy of not posting yours.

Also, most of those columns were not buckling, except near the impact region you could expect such damage. The aluminum was coming off of the columns.

Also, yes, that was a mild fire, as compared to skyscraper fires such as the following...



...which did not bring the building down, even after a much longer and obviously more severe burn. I know you'll downplay the Windsor Tower and call apples and oranges, but the real apples and oranges are those two fires.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Shroomery

It's funny how you twist and turn to shove the guilt on someone else then the real enemy.

Nice strawman attack

Originally posted by Shroomery
It is not just ONE woman standing there, and the fact that it is straight after the impact is even more troubling, cause you know what, that would mean that the fires weren't even that big in the beginning when all the kerosine was there.

It’s true, the fires in the building did take a little time to build up and spread. So, what? That’s what fires do.

Originally posted by Shroomery
You're telling me that the concrete and all the other (mostly inflammable) office materials starting burning hotter and hotter, and that eventually made the central support collums brake ? Or the kerosine magically re-ignited when the people in the opening dissapeared, setting those floors ablaze again ?

Wow Concrete cubicles, concrete desks, concrete computers.

(I know that wasn’t what you meant, but that is what came to mind when I read that.)

Actually modern offices are a lot more flammable than most people realize. Cubicle fire test

In addition, there was all of the interior cabin components of the airplane to consider. Plastic and foam and cloth.

Originally posted by Shroomery
You have no idea how crooket your story is because the fact is that THE FIRES WERE NEVER GIGANTIG, BIG, or whatever you want to call them.
Show me some pictures goddamnit, you see flames yeah, no wonder, a plane crashed into it!

Look at those pictures. You see flames shooting up on the outside of the building at least three stories high (30 feet). In addition you can see flames in almost all of the windows from one side on the building to the other, that’s just over 200 feet.

In addition, those pictures were taken well after the airplane impact.

When you consider the fact that each floor of the tower covered almost an entire acre of space, the fires were pretty big in my opinion.

Originally posted by Shroomery
Yeah, quite the GIF you got there, I think I can whip that up in about 10 minutes too, although it's a very skewed picture of what really happend.
The second plane doesn't even exit the tower at the right side like it clearly does on ALL the video footage. Nice try though.

Damn, you need a seeing eye dog. You have completely missesd the point. The building layout and the size of the airplane meant that it would have been impossible for the jet fuel load from the left wing, NOT to hit the core.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And you know this, how? Where did you get your engineering degree? What is you structural engineers license number? Please explain how the WTC was “engineerded” so that the “colums” would not have failed?

Originally posted by Shroomery
I suggest you look at the links I gave to you earlier, or maybe you can just google for 9/11 pancaking theory.

In other words, you are not and your sources are not. :p

Originally posted by Shroomery
This is why YOU are the conspiracy theorist. You assume it were terrorists, however there's no evidence,

Where did I mention terrorists? I was talking about the collapse mechanism. No where in any of my posts on this thread have I mentioned terroists. Please do not put words into my mouth, thank you.

Originally posted by Shroomery
you also assume that a plane would mean alot of destruction. However, everyone knows that these buildings were BUILT TO WITHSTAND SUCH AN ATTACK MANY TIMES OVER.

No, that is not correct. The buildings were never “designed” to withstand an aircraft impact. After the design was completed, the engineers did some simple calculations to determine if the building would be able to withstand the loss of some of the exterior and interior columns. The conditions that they assumed were not the same conditions that occurred on 9/11, and the effects of the subsequent fire were not considered. That is not the same thing as saying that “built to withstand such an attack many times over.” It may seem like a minor point to some, but it is a critical one that you should try to appreciate.

Originally posted by Shroomery
A plane is lightweight, if it flew into 42 support columns after penetrating trough a wall, it wouldn't be able to knock many of them over because most of the penetrating force would scatter on impact.

Cool a new sig line. (I wont even bother to point out just how stupid that sentence is.)

Originally posted by Shroomery

What you see is a hole in the outer structure, not the supporting structure wich are the colums in the center.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The gravity loads of the building were distributed about evenly between the core columns and the exterior columns. In other words, the exterior columns supported about half the loads, and the core columns supported the other half.

Where did you hear that rubbish ?

I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you find a licensed structural engineer anywhere in the world that will back you up on that. Nothing to do with the collapse or the fire, just your contention that the exterior walls of the WTC towers did not bear any of the gravity loads of the building.

You realize that it this were true, the building floors would be cantilevered out from the core. No, on second thought you don’t even know what I am talking about, do you.

Originally posted by Shroomery
YES THIS IS A MILD FIRE, are you blind ?

This is a inferno like you hope to portray the WTC fire :
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

The fact that the Windsor Tower is only a small fraction of the size of the WTC towers must have escaped your notice. In addition, there are so many significant differences in the construction of the two buildings that it makes a direct comparison pointless.

Originally posted by Shroomery
and here's some more about why the fire would never alter the structural and supporting capacity of the steel :
rense.com...

Ah, Kevin Ryan. The poor smuck that got himself fired for not understanding the ASTM standard that he was supposed to be using to test structural assemblies. Note the key words “structural assemblies.”

That is what the ASTM standard is supposed to test, not individual steel specimens, but complete assemblies (i.e. the floor truss system). Thus if the assembly becomes damaged, distorted, or looses some or all of it’s fireproofing, then the standard no longer applies, now does it.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Also, perhaps you can tell me what happens to the gravity loads that these columns normally carry after they start to buckle inward like that (79th through 81st floors)

You're talking about the OUTER skeleton of the WTC this does not function to keep the building standing.
This is exactly the reason why the building could never come down like it did cause the CENTER supports it, not the outer walls.

Again, you have no understanding of even the most simple principles of how building structures work, especially the WTC design. It was the fact that the exterior walls were designed to support half the gravity loads that allowed them to build a structure with no intermediate columns between the core and the exterior.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I would like to point out that the follow graphics..



...have absolutely nothing to support them save the directions the planes hit the towers. It is not known how much damage was dealt to the North Tower's columns, and the South Tower's were nearly completely missed. Those pics are misleading to say the least,

This one is a little more accurate. Now explain how the south tower core columns were missed again? Even if the wings shredded on impact, the momentum of the debris nad the fuel would have careid the left wind squarely into the core area. In fact in the columns were missed, how come two of the three stairwells were destroyed?

Howard, and unless you want us to start resorting to totally bs information, maybe you can do us the courtesy of not posting yours.

The B.S. is coming from your side, my friend.

Also, most of those columns were not buckling, except near the impact region you could expect such damage. The aluminum was coming off of the columns.

Inward? How the heck could the aluminum be coming off by bending INWARD into the building?

...which did not bring the building down, even after a much longer and obviously more severe burn. I know you'll downplay the Windsor Tower and call apples and oranges, but the real apples and oranges are those two fires.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Well considering that the steel portions of the Windsor tower did collapse, while the concrete core did not, I don’t consider it a good comparison.


[edit on 16-8-2005 by HowardRoark]

The B.S. is coming from your side, my friend.

Why, thank you for this invaluable piece of information.

Those two pics are still total bs, based on nothing but a vivid imagination and the ability to make animated gifs. And yet you still use them as evidence and expect us to take it seriously.

...

I find it hard to believe that a piece of aluminum such as thus



could make it through a grid of steel columns such as these:

Inward? How the heck could the aluminum be coming off by bending INWARD into the building?

As you can see, the aluminum managed to bend in quite a few directions, especially when it's no longer attached to the steel. The pics you've posted show nothing but bent aluminum. Seriously, man, you can at least show us the actual bent columns or something rather than expecting us to assume the steel columns were all following the contours of their aluminum facades. How unscientific can you be in your arguments?

Well considering that the steel portions of the Windsor tower did collapse, while the concrete core did not, I don’t consider it a good comparison.

Wait - so all the steel sections collapsed?





[edit on 16-8-2005 by bsbray11]

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

I find it very interesting that you conspiracy nuts have managed to avoid looking at this link.This ought to clear confusion as to how the towers collapsed, and collapsed they did.

As for the alledged missle hitting the pentagon, this has already been debunked in earlier parts of the thread.

Originally posted by DaTerminator

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

I find it very interesting that you conspiracy nuts have managed to avoid looking at this link.This ought to clear confusion as to how the towers collapsed, and collapsed they did.

Too bad that information works within the official story and does not take into account all the things that contradict it (ie, the squibs, cooling fires, powdered concrete, the impossibility of reproducing models of the collapse, witness accounts of other explosions, Larry Silverstein comments, other official story inconsistencies across 9/11 as a whole, etc.).

When these guys explain the collapses to you, they're doing so at the cost of conveniently leaving out all of that other evidence.

Originally posted by DaTerminator

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

I find it very interesting that you conspiracy nuts have managed to avoid looking at this link.This ought to clear confusion as to how the towers collapsed, and collapsed they did.

As for the alledged missle hitting the pentagon, this has already been debunked in earlier parts of the thread.

Ofcourse you'll find something like that, it's the "official" story.
Why don't you give us a copy of the 9/11 report to prove you're right ?
Besides, it was written on 9/11.
I don't have to explain how little was known at the time, although alot of people said as soon as they saw the towers come down that a plane could not've caused that.

Cool a new sig line. (I wont even bother to point out just how stupid that sentence is.)

I disagree, go ahead, lets see what you make of it.

This one is a little more accurate. Now explain how the south tower core columns were missed again? Even if the wings shredded on impact, the momentum of the debris nad the fuel would have careid the left wind squarely into the core area. In fact in the columns were missed, how come two of the three stairwells were destroyed?

Again with the paint job...
You still don't get it do you, we can all draw pictures like that, it still wont bring us closer to figuring out what damage has been done to the central columns.
Let me tell you again, you're ASSUMING they were damage because in your eyes a plane is a big freaking thing. Without taking into account the buildup of a skyscraper.
I presented you with links where it is explained how these towers should not collapse from what happend on 9/11. But here's another one:
www.rense.com...

Don't forget we're still discussing the damage on the towers, we still haven't discussed the facts that surround the crash. The dustclouds, the dissapearing concrete, the steel beams flying off, clear explosion puffs coming from the windows. The unexplainable collapse of building 7. The explosions in the basement of at least one of the towers. The fact that people were warned not to go into the towers, some were told to leave them in the morning, others were told not to fly. What about the fact that half the alledged hijackers turned up alive and well ?

In any case, you've seen too many movies if you think this is how towers collapse without planted explosions.

Here are some comparisons : www.whatreallyhappened.com...

I'll quote a part :

The photos below are of buildings which collapsed during an earthquake. They show the typical result that occurs when a single load bearing member fails, resulting in the remains of the building tipping over and down onto the initiating point.






For a building to collapse into its own footprint, as WTC 7 did, ALL the load bearing members must fail at the exact same moment. This is achieved in controlled demolitions.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Shroomery]

For a full explanation of what happened that day go here.

'Nuff said.

P.S. All you saw, original poster, was a TV show. And the media is lying. Think about it. The only evidence for the official story about 9-11 is on TV. Which makes 9-11 about as relevant and believable as Desperate Housewives.

Don't say I didn't tell you.

Did you know that Bush spent the night prior at a tennis resort in Boca Raton? Trivial, really.

Oh and BTW Howard

No, that is not correct. The buildings were never “designed” to withstand an aircraft impact. After the design was completed, the engineers did some simple calculations to determine if the building would be able to withstand the loss of some of the exterior and interior columns. The conditions that they assumed were not the same conditions that occurred on 9/11, and the effects of the subsequent fire were not considered. That is not the same thing as saying that “built to withstand such an attack many times over.” It may seem like a minor point to some, but it is a critical one that you should try to appreciate.

freepressinternational.com...

Originally posted by Shroomery

Cool a new sig line. (I wont even bother to point out just how stupid that sentence is.)

I disagree, go ahead, lets see what you make of it.

Well first of all, even a conservatively “light” weight for the 767’s would be about 350,000 lbs. That isn’t exactly what I would call “lightweight.” That equals about 158,750 kg.

By all accounts the plane was going full speed, however, lets make a conservatively estimate of 450 mph (200 meters per second or 660 feet/second).

Entering that into a kinetic energy calculator gives us an energy of 15,000,000 Joules.

This energy was almost completely absorbed by the building. (it also does not include the energy of the fuel air explosions, this is just the mechanical force of the impact). Some of the energy was dissipated by the motion of the structure. The rest was dissipated by the deformation of the building materials, (i.e. concrete and steel).

If the plane was going 660 feet per second and came (mostly) to a halt within the 200 foot wide building, the longest that that could have taken would have been 0.3 seconds. This equals 50 megawatts of energy released by the impact.

Now I’ll grant you that it is a bit hard to take that number and estimate all the possible damaged that that would have caused. But it isn’t that hard to appreciate that 50 megawatts is a lot of energy. Certainly the photographs of the exterior damage are indicative.

Don't forget the fact that a part of the airliner passed all the way through the WTC 1 core and out the other side of the building with enough force to knock a set of three columns off the building to fal a block away. How could this have ocured without the core columns being hit by debris also?


And the fact that there was no way geometric way for the plane to impact WTC 2 without hitting the core is probably too much for you to accept.

They did work up some computer models to estimate the internal structural damage at NIST, but since you not doubt think that everyone that works for the government is evil incarnate, I know that you will not accept this.

I’m sure you also won’t accept the premise that the evidence of significant damage to the stairwells and the cutting of elevator cables by the impact indicate damage to the core area.


No, we will never know the specific damage to specific columns, but what difference would that make? With modern computer technology, we can come up with best-case to worst-case estimates that are far better than the calculations done by Robinson in ’69. Even the best-case estimates indicate that the floor slabs and core columns were damaged. I don’t know why you keep trying to deny this.

Originally posted by Shroomery
Oh and BTW Howard

No, that is not correct. The buildings were never “designed” to withstand an aircraft impact. After the design was completed, the engineers did some simple calculations to determine if the building would be able to withstand the loss of some of the exterior and interior columns. The conditions that they assumed were not the same conditions that occurred on 9/11, and the effects of the subsequent fire were not considered. That is not the same thing as saying that “built to withstand such an attack many times over.” It may seem like a minor point to some, but it is a critical one that you should try to appreciate.

freepressinternational.com...

I think that this series of articles from the New York Times is a little better researched.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Part 4 in particular addresses this issue.

Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 9 days ago with 48 member flags

9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 12 days ago with 43 member flags

9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 1 days ago with 37 member flags

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traiters are rounded up
  Posted 2 days ago with 35 member flags

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 5 days ago with 16 member flags

Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 13 days ago with 13 member flags

Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 15 days ago with 9 member flags

British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: