Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

reply to post by pteridine


no we are talking the ability for the plane to do enough damage to the facade and the outer columns and the core columns and do it with enough energy to go throgh the building.

so agin quit avoiding my question .

just show your facts thats all you have to do its that simple. copy it and paste it here, for all of us to read

i know for a fact you will never find any information to back up what you are saying you are a complete BS artist spitting hear say out the side of you neck

ill give you the tools agin if you need

here ya go use this to find out it ran outa velocity, very easy to do
en.wikipedia.org...

here use this to find the Ultimate Shear Strength of all the meats in question very easy to do
www.roymech.co.uk...

here use this to find the force in tons needed to shear the steel ,very easy to do
www.anvilfire.com...

for anything else you have doubts about this should do the trick from thermodynamics to physics

www.calculatoredge.com...

this is all you will need to help you just enter your data and there you will have it, O yeah you havent shown us your data yet just hear say

instead of bouncing all over the place why dont we answer some questions first to rule them out right

main question

.125 gage aluminums Ultimate Shear Strength?

linear force of the wings front surface??
it did slow down once the nose impacted the building. the wings are further back on the plane

Ultimate Shear Strength of the steel in question inside and outside the WTC 1 and 2 ??

force needed to shear holes in the steel in question ??

for WTC 7 we need to find the built in redunancies of the building??

and we need to find the hottest consistent flame maintained in the building in the areas that was on fire ??

and then compare them to the laws of physics and thermodynamics
here for reference
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

why cant you do this simple task ??
why havnt you posted any references ??

all you have to do is show us the data tou use so we can be as informed as you .

why wont you just do that simple request ??

reply to post by lycopersicum


My, but your panties are in a knot. The question was whether the airplane could cut through the steel columns. We looked at the photos. I provided a reference that said it could cut the steel, even though many of the columns had failed at the joints. You didn't believe the reference, called me a liar, and wanted the paper. I explained why it could not be posted and told you how to make sure I hadn't faked it and wasn't a liar. You apparently can't do that. You are behaving badly and need to control yourself a little better. You are one post from ignore.
I recommend that we take tezzajw's advice and get back on topic, if possible.
Were there explosives and where is the evidence? You know my position. No evidence means no explosives and estimates of collapse time and how you "feel" about it are not evidence of explosives.

reply to post by tezzajw

I am sorry you feel the need to concede. Perhaps you realize that the explosives conspiracy has many holes in it just with lack of motive and opportunity, and that the complete lack of physical evidence finishes it off.

but why wont you answer the questions you have not answerd the ones in this post why not ?/

Originally posted by pteridine
Titre du document / Document title
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center...

So where is the explanation for the plane going through the INTERIOR columns.

That is the whole point here, the plane won't go through one set of steel columns, slow down (backwards acceleration), and then still have enough energy to go through thicker central core columns.

Damage to the outer columns would not have any impact on the buildings integrity. Simply due to the design of the mesh structure, a simple engineering principle.

Also that article PROVES nothing, its just assumption on the part of an educated person in denial. It's simply an assumption that the plane could have caused enough damage to the interior columns, when someone can show me aluminium slicing through steel, at ANY speed, in a lab, then I'll oay attention.

I can show you in a lab how aluminium does not have enough mass to cause steel to fail in any way. I keep saying this and yet not one of you wants to actually prove me wrong by trying it. Go get some aluminium and steel (in proportion) and try it.

Also remember the plane that hit WTC 2 didn't even impact the central columns, so how did the central columns fail in that tower? Also why didn't the building fall to the weakest most damage area, you know that pesky path of least resistance? No, all 3 buildings collapsed straight down, into the path of most resistance.

reply to post by pteridine


That's ironic because there is also complete lack of evidence that three buildings symmetrically collapsed from asymmetrical damage and office fires.

There is a complete lack of physical laws to explain it.

Yet when we apply those laws of physics, the conclusion is anything but a collapse from fire and localised damage.

Explosives? I don't know. What I do know is that buildings don't collapse themselves through the path of most resistance without that resistance being compromised in some way. There had to be more going on than we're being told.

reply to post by esdad71

You know esdad I don't believe a word you're saying. I think you work an office job shuffling papers, no real world engineering experience at all. That's just my assumption, seeing as you like to make them about everyone else...

Anyone with any serious experience with engineering would not post that pic as proof of ANYTHING.

Anyone with your claimed education should know office fires do not have enough energy in them to transfer thermal energy to thousands of tons of steel, that would cause complete global collapse. That's why NO steel building has EVER globally collapsed from fire, that's my precedence where's yours?

You should also know that if it is possible then it should be repeatable in a lab, right? That is the scientific method. So why couldn't NIST get it to work without exaggerating the numbers?

As I said before the world is full of educated fools.

[edit on 1/24/2009 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
Titre du document / Document title
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center...

So where is the explanation for the plane going through the INTERIOR columns.

That is the whole point here, the plane won't go through one set of steel columns, slow down (backwards acceleration), and then still have enough energy to go through thicker central core columns.

How much more energy would the plane have had to have to go through any of the thicker central core columns?

reply to post by adam_zapple


just use the formula i posted

here ya go use this to find out it ran outa velocity, very easy to do
en.wikipedia.org...

here use this to find the Ultimate Shear Strength of all the meats in question very easy to do
www.roymech.co.uk...

here use this to find the force in tons needed to shear the steel ,very easy to do
www.anvilfire.com...

just fill in with what you already know as far as plane weight , building weight, plane speed, a36,a572,a514,a441 steel shear

thats it all you need right there

add

But you know adam_zapple for someone who has argued so much about physics i find it kind of ironic you actually asked that question

but what ever the info is right there for you to use

peace



[edit on 24-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

reply to post by adam_zapple


Yeah that question doesn't really make a lot of sense.

You want thin light aluminium wing leading edges to act like slicing scissors and cut through, not one, but two sets of steel columns?

And you wonder why we find that hard to believe?

But the thing you keep missing is the damage cause by the planes is really irrelevant. Even IF the columns were completely severed it could still not cause a complete global collapse failure of the towers. The aircraft impact and damage didn't create a path of no resistance for the building to collapse into. Neither did the fires. So you still have that problem of the collapse speed and lack of resistance...

A progressive collapse is due to structural components failing over time, not in near free-fall acceleration.

reply to post by ANOK

You said: "I can show you in a lab how aluminium does not have enough mass to cause steel to fail in any way. I keep saying this and yet not one of you wants to actually prove me wrong by trying it. Go get some aluminium and steel (in proportion) and try it."

Your lab likely does not have the required capabilities. As I said before, throwing aluminum foil at an anvil will not damage it. The relative masses and hardnesses are only part of the equation. Remember what the spars and engine mounts on the P3 looked like. They were structurally strong and had to be to do their jobs. Aircraft are made of strong alloy and are welded and riveted together in a rigid structure.
At impact, the entire mass and kinetic energy of the airplane was focused on a small cross section of the columns. Consider the aircraft travelling through the beams as delivering a series of impacts. Imagine that the steel breaks less and the aluminum breaks more with each impact, but consider that much more aluminum structure will impact each column than there is steel to strike. Soon, the steel is sheared and the plane continues on, fatally damaged and unable to fly, but it still continues on at some slightly lesser velocity. See the abstract of the paper I referenced above. View the youtube railgun videos showing small aluminum projectiles travelling at high velocities and destroying targets for the extremes of this kinetic energy concept.
It is all about energy being concentrated in small areas. Even though your experience says it shouldn't happen, this event and these conditions are far outside of that everyday experience.

A cube monkey huh? Nice ANOK. Look, this thread, again, was about evidence of explosives and why, if this is a conspiracy, the goverment waited to pull WTC 7.

So far, after 17 pages of garbage, name-calling, half answered and derailing comments, I have only this to show from those who KNOW the truth.

1. There were 2 types of explosives used in the WTC 1,2 and 7.

2. Maybe something happened and they (the NWO-Black Op-Cheney worshiping industrial military complex) had to wait.

So, in a nutshell, i have had it. I will risk the warn or the points or whatever it may be. This was about the OP not aluminum and steel and their relationship. That is it. Nothing else. NO alternative theories but lots of praise to Alex Jones. I find it odd how I cannot link to anything but others can. I find it odd that others can excessively quote and go all billy bad ass behind their computers when they are probably so socially awkward MOmmy brings them Happy Meals each night for dinner with a straw in a Capri Sun.THen again, these are only assumptions that can be made.

Also, you went to Vo-tech ANOK, you are not an engineer. Yo obviously missed the sarcasm in the Scientific theory post. I wanted your evidence just like the OP.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by esdad71]

reply to post by esdad71


One thing esdad.

You mock us for having no physical evidence of explosives but still believe the buildings were CD'd in some way.

Yet, without any physical evidence, you believe that flight 93 was shot down.

I'll leave it at that other than to say, at least we have physics behind why we think they were CD'd. An airplane shot down would be quite similar to an actual wreckage of the plane. So, therefore, we at least have more circumstantial evidence of CD than we do shot-down theory IMO.

reply to post by Griff

You said: "An airplane shot down would be quite similar to an actual wreckage of the plane."

Wouldn't a building collapse due to internal failures be quite similar to a building collapse due to demolition? How would you tell the difference between failure from fire and failure from explosives?

Originally posted by pteridine
Wouldn't a building collapse due to internal failures be quite similar to a building collapse due to demolition? How would you tell the difference between failure from fire and failure from explosives?

The way I would tell is that failures from fire are usually asymmetrical since fire does not burn evenly when uncontrolled. Add this to the speed at which they collapsed (WTC 7 being at indiscernible free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds as admitted to by NIST).

Either that or some construction companies/manufacturers/designers/owners need to come up with a few answers.

reply to post by Griff

You said: "Add this to the speed at which they collapsed (WTC 7 being at indiscernible free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds as admitted to by NIST).

Note that the free fall speed was only for a part of the collapse sequence and things were slower at the start and finish. The finish was explained as the piling up of debris that slowed the fall at the end. This probably would have happened in any collapse sequence. The slow start and increase of collapse velocity after the two penthouses collapsed sequentially appears to be the result of cascading failures. No explosions were heard or recorded on seismometers, and no identifiable explosive residue was found. Until more evidence is brought forward, the only conclusion consistent with the existing evidence is unplanned collapse.

reply to post by Griff


Now, when I ask a question and it is derailed in this fashion, yes, then some mocking and sarcasm may present itself. It took 17 pages of this garbage for me tor lose it.

I do not believe, in any fashion, that explosives were used that day. Based on factual evidence such as video, pictures and testimony i have come to that conclusion. It is all in books and on the internet. I can see the twisted beams in photos. I can see the rubble. I can see the broken columns. I can see the pieces of the planes. This is physical evidence.

There is and never has been any reported evidence of explosives. There has never been any materials that would have been used in the bombing. The initial thought of the FBI ( you can google it and think PP may even have it up!) is that there were also truck bombs used in the attacks jsut like 93 along with the jets. So, in other words, they were actively looking for evidence of explosives. Most of this information however was withheld due to the Moussai trial.

That is what this thread was about.

side note - Flight 93 is another thread I would be more than happy to open. Along with Flight 587. Nice try at the connection though Griff.

Originally posted by pteridine
Wouldn't a building collapse due to internal failures be quite similar to a building collapse due to demolition? How would you tell the difference between failure from fire and failure from explosives?

Because steel-structured high-rises have never failed due to fire. You have to use explosives to bring these buildings down. You cannot set any type of fire to bring steel-structured high-rise buildings down. If you could, then demo companies would be using fire instead of explosives. My god, this isn't rocket science.

I just can't comprehend the logic that you claim you can get the same effect from fires as you can from explosives. Do you realize how much time and money demo companies would save by just setting some fires instead of prepping a building and then planting the explosives? Come on...