Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern.

So in other words.

Making building 7 collapse with explosives was near impossible. But on the other hand it would be easy when it was hit by debris.

The sadest part is people read this, yet still agree with the whole thing.

Fools.




[edit on 1-4-2007 by Shroomery]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
In fact point out where NIST state that buildings should have survived the impact of the planes.

1. www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners.

2. www.nist.gov...

*The unusually dense spacing of perimeter columns, coupled with deep spandrels, that was an inherent part of both the architectural and structural design of the exterior walls, resulted in a robust building that was able to redistribute loads from severed perimeter columns to adjacent intact columns.
*The wind loads used for the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, which governed the design of the perimeter frame-tube system, significantly exceeded the prescriptive requirements of the New York City building code and selected other building codes of the era (Chicago, New York State), including the relevant national model building code (BOCA).
*The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large dimensional size of the WTC towers helped the buildings withstand the aircraft impact.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Point out where I claimed NIST lied.

Point out the errors in the NIST final report into the collapse of the Towers.

In fact point out where NIST state that buildings should have survived the impact of the planes.

You must be new here, I advise you to take a look around and encourage no one to respond to you with information you're too lazy to go look for.

Originally posted by nybaseball44
I don't know what happened on 9/11 or who "did it"... but one thing I know is that Rosie Odonnel would probably do more harm then good as a spokesman >,>

You're so right, I believe she's completely taking this in the wrong direction and not in a mature manner.

It would be better if she had a website, had a forum where people could discuss, had a website where she has all the data formulated into a good response and argument to the official story.

THEN with that, approach the public but more professionally.

But hey, no one's perfect.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

The fact is that large commercial aircrafts were slammed into each building; they were seriously compromised and due to their design failed.

These are the NIST estimates of structural failure, I hope you enjoy them (by the way, I don't notice any "serious compromise" of the structure )

Basic structural set up (notice the core).



Damage Key



WTC 1



WTC 2



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fixed BB Code for boldng

[edit on 1/4/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Originally posted by truthseeka
Stateofgrace...

Since you go on and ON about the importance of the plane impacts, I have one question for you. What happened to bldg 7? You know, the one that was...

NOT HIT BY AN AIRPLANE!!!!

Let's have it, seeing that you know more than FEMA and NIST about the influence of the plane impacts...

The building was hit by massive amounts of falling debris, it burnt and later collapsed.

NIST final report into this as not be made public yet so speculation into the exact cause is pointless.

But if you would like to explain why the FDNY cleared the area before hand please do so

Ah HA!

The planes aren't so important now, are they? Care to explain how your "explanation accounts for 7 falling JUST LIKE the twins? I thought buildings falling straight down from plane impacts was bad enough, but now they fall STRAIGHT DOWN from damage to one side?



Mr. engineer, care to explain why the OKC building, DESPITE severe damage from bombs, was still standing with ONE COLUMN SUPPORTING THE BUILDING?!?!

Originally posted by Masisoar

The fact is that large commercial aircrafts were slammed into each building; they were seriously compromised and due to their design failed.

You missed out the damage to the external columns any reason? , were they not important?

( Oh thanks for your welcome, is this the accepted way to treat skeptics ?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trimmed BIG quote

[edit on 1/4/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ah HA!

The planes aren't so important now, are they? Care to explain how your "explanation accounts for 7 falling JUST LIKE the twins?

I thought buildings falling straight down from plane impacts was bad enough, but now they fall STRAIGHT DOWN from damage to one side?

Mr. engineer, care to explain why the OKC building, DESPITE severe damage from bombs, was still standing with ONE COLUMN SUPPORTING THE BUILDING?!?!

Did it? maybe I missed that part . i thought the Towers collpased from the top, did Building 7 do this ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trimmed triple nested quote

[edit on 1/4/07 by masqua]

Oops, here they are. The only thing I found distasteful is that you seem to mimick all the skeptics on this board who first get here. As opposed to looking through the VERY VERY mass amounts of threads on the subject, you ask questions already answered. There's a lot to learn bud, go look.

WTC 1




WTC 2



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Removed bolding from entire post

[edit on 1/4/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by Masisoar
Oops, here they are. The only thing I found distasteful is that you seem to mimick all the skeptics on this board who first get here. As opposed to looking through the VERY VERY mass amounts of threads on the subject, you ask questions already answered. There's a lot to learn bud, go look.

WTC 1

WTC 2

Thank you.

I know there are a mass of threads, I know people have differing opinions and if you find my behaviour distasteful, fine so be it. I am not here to become your friend or to become your foe; I am simply here to discuss the events of 911.

You have claimed the structures were not compromised; do planes being flown at high speed into the external supporting columns not constitute compromise?

The point being.... the plane impacts played a role in the collapses, but not a major one and nothing to attribute major failure towards.

The failure was being pinned primarily on the ensueing fires that lingered on afterwards, and contrary to some people's beliefs, the jet fuel only lasted a small while (roughly 15 minutes) after it made contact with the building, and not even then did it pose enough threat to the structural integrity to cause failure on a GLOBAL SCALE (remember this when you see the NIST wanting to pin the office fires as the main reason the collapse happened, because it caused a simultaneous global collapse

)

It takes a very concentrated hot flame to cause failure on the structural steel of the World Trade Center. The fires after the impacts weren't a furnace, they were spread out and anything BUT hot enough to cause damage to the steel, not even over time.

After they burnt out, what were you left with? Office fires. And that's where the blame is pinned as to the reason of the collapse. That's like blaming a small gust of wind to cause enough turbulance to down a mid-sized aircraft during perfect operating conditions. It's just ridiculously hard to believe it could happen.

And from evidence via samples from the WTC (reported by the NIST), videos and pictures, the flames couldn't of been nearly hot enough to cause the buildings to fall within the TIME FRAME alloted. Sure the flames spread but they weren't efficient enough to cause the steel to weaken.

The fuel to air ratio wasn't good enough to cause that, the black smoke evidence is a sort of "smoking gun" for this argument as well as the samples tested.

Then there were reports and pictures of melted steel at the debris zones of the World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7. How do you intend on explaining that?

Great diagrams.

On Pop Sci and CIA ties:

Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine’s editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Bush administration factotum Michael Chertoff. It was Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report that Griffin has eviscerated.

From:
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Are they giving us science suppression again as Lyne continues
to suggest.

The Illuminati network may be gone but is Bush part of some new
and approved network.

The passenger planes filled with napalm and thermate and not
passengers as some suggest might do a lot more damage.






[edit on 4/1/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Thank you.

I know there are a mass of threads, I know people have differing opinions and if you find my behaviour distasteful, fine so be it. I am not here to become your friend or to become your foe; I am simply here to discuss the events of 911.

You have claimed the structures were not compromised; do planes being flown at high speed into the external supporting columns not constitute compromise?

You misquoted me I said the planes wouldn't cause anything with the likes of Serious Compromise. Obviously the planes did do damage to the towers, which any pictures and video can show.

Anyways, to answer your argument, yes a plane being flown into the external supporting columns does constitute a degree of compromise. But HOW MUCH did it compromise (i.e. to what degree). That can be answered by help of the pictures I posted.

And my observation is by (not much) you still had more than roughly 80+% of the columns still intact on any given impact floor and as for the internal columns, I would say there was no serious degree of compromise at all. The internal columns were a very elaborate network of steel components, like shown in the picture above. It would take a global failure to cause them all to basically give out (Food for Thought).

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Did it? maybe I missed that part . i thought the Towers collpased from the top, did Building 7 do this ?

Not what I meant. I meant STRAIGHT DOWN.

Nothing to say about OKC, huh?

Originally posted by Masisoar
The point being.... the plane impacts played a role in the collapses, but not a major one and nothing to attribute major failure towards.

The failure was being pinned primarily on the ensueing fires that lingered on afterwards, and contrary to some people's beliefs, the jet fuel only lasted a small while (roughly 15 minutes) after it made contact with the building, and not even then did it pose enough threat to the structural integrity to cause failure on a GLOBAL SCALE (remember this when you see the NIST wanting to pin the office fires as the main reason the collapse happened, because it caused a simultaneous global collapse

)

It takes a very concentrated hot flame to cause failure on the structural steel of the World Trade Center. The fires after the impacts weren't a furnace, they were spread out and anything BUT hot enough to cause damage to the steel, not even over time.

After they burnt out, what were you left with? Office fires. And that's where the blame is pinned as to the reason of the collapse. That's like blaming a small gust of wind to cause enough turbulance to down a mid-sized aircraft during perfect operating conditions. It's just ridiculously hard to believe it could happen.

And from evidence via samples from the WTC (reported by the NIST), videos and pictures, the flames couldn't of been nearly hot enough to cause the buildings to fall within the TIME FRAME alloted. Sure the flames spread but they weren't efficient enough to cause the steel to weaken.

The fuel to air ratio wasn't good enough to cause that, the black smoke evidence is a sort of "smoking gun" for this argument as well as the samples tested.

Then there were reports and pictures of melted steel at the debris zones of the World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7. How do you intend on explaining that?

So you pin you theory on your believe that black smoke is a sign of oxygen starved fires?

The Molten steel you allege that was found, have you any proof that it was steel?

Why would molten metal found weeks after the event be signs of explosive devices? Explosives explode, they are instant, they do not last for weeks, so why does molten metal indicate a controlled demolition ?

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

From:
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Are they giving us science suppression again as Lyne continues
to suggest.

[edit on 4/1/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

Hehe I believe the biggest science suppression was them destroying the steel and not allowing a complete investigation, I understand that some argue that it was a lot of steel to just put somewhere but how important is it to you on a structural/scientific basis to find out very conclusively how the buildings failed?

Opinions vary but on that basis I consider it very important because it showed a weakness in that structure design and that office fires can "supposeably" bring down steel buildings within a few hours.

All in all, I think Popular Mechanics is trying to take a more "critics" response to the 9/11 movement and be a backbone for the official story and what it can't answer so people can "mock" the 9/11 movement.

Pity them though.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Did it? maybe I missed that part . i thought the Towers collpased from the top, did Building 7 do this ?

World Trade Centers 1 and 2 collapsed roughly from their impact zones and World Trade Center 7 collapsed from the bottom up (hence the quick collapse time).

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
So you pin you theory on your believe that black smoke is a sign of oxygen starved fires?

The Molten steel you allege that was found, have you any proof that it was steel?

Why would molten metal found weeks after the event be signs of explosive devices? Explosives explode, they are instant, they do not last for weeks, so why does molten metal indicate a controlled demolition ?

Let's not stray away from your exterior column argument yet, I want you to understand this but we can go with this too.

-------------------------

Black smoke is indeed a a sign of a bad fuel to air mixture, hence the sooty flame because there is a lot of carbon that is not efficiently being burned.

Have you taken a chemistry class or used a bunsen burner? Achieving the blue flame is success because of fuel to air mixture which inevitably results in a non sooty flame.

The same applies here, sooty flame (i.e. dark black smoke) = bad fuel to air mixture, so it wasn't as efficient as it could be at a maximum range. You had mediocre fires burning up there.

------------------------

LOL Proof it was steel? There was molten iron and steel found there, what else are you going to find molten pools of at the debris zone? Carbon fibre? Aluminum?

The iron and steel are common products for structural components because iron = steel.

I honestly can't find the links to the pictures and comments from the clean up workers, but I'm sure you can find them if you look hard enough, believe it it was steel/iron.

-------------------------

And where did I say explosive devices? Where did you get that from. For someone being a critic, you're not very observant or keen on what people say, that's the second misquote you've had on me. Shame on you

Hahaha.



[edit on 4/1/2007 by Masisoar]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Common sense works everytime!

HAHAHAHA.

Seriously. NIST is looking for explosives in WTC7 because it could have not collapse due to fire. Even less in a pancake at the speed of free-fall. And the popular mechanic BS was debunked long ago, and the guy who wrote this is the brother of a big name in the NSA... yeah sure we'll believe his BS.

Really ? When did NIST reject the pancake theroy ?

In PBS's "Building on Ground Zero" they state that the floors held right up till the collapses started.

Black smoke is indeed a a sign of a bad fuel to air mixture, hence the sooty flame because there is a lot of carbon that is not efficiently being burned.

Really ?




Or try reading here.
www.911myths.com...

LOL Proof it was steel? There was molten iron and steel found there, what else are you going to find molten pools of at the debris zone? Carbon fibre? Aluminum?

The iron and steel are common products for structural components because iron = steel.

I honestly can't find the links to the pictures and comments from the clean up workers, but I'm sure you can find them if you look hard enough, believe it it was steel/iron.

Try here.

www.911myths.com...

And where did I say explosive devices? Where did you get that from. For someone being a critic, you're not very observant or keen on what people say, that's the second misquote you've had on me. Shame on you

Indeed, so why mention molten metal if it not an indicator of explosives. ?