26-strory bldg engulfed in flames - no collapse

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Can I quantify.....see, this is where there is a dramatic disconnect. You believe that somehow you will be able to accurately recreate exactly what happened from the impact to the collapse. I know that there is absolutely no way to make that happen.

Why not? It happened three times in one day. Surely this is an easy phenomenon to recreate? No? Then why not?

[edit on 1/21/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


What data do you have to help recreate the conditions that day? Were there temperature sensors inside the damaged areas? Stop motion cameras transmitting interior pictures as the collapses began? Vibration sensors maybe? Do we have an accurate detailed description of which beams were compromised from the impact and which ones were only exposed to the fire? And of those, do we know which ones still had their full fireproofing and which ones did not?

For an accurate recreation, you would need all of the above information (and more) and we do not have it...we will NEVER have it.

reply to post by Griff


And amazingly enough, I could post the words of the men who actually did go through the steel looking for clues who said different. Do not mistake political grandstanding for science.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

No, WTC 7 had WTC1 carve a chunk out of it.

Which caused some damage but only on one side of the building. And yet 7 collapsed straight down at free-fall speed into a neat pile. And furthermore - the collapse was 6 hours AFTER the damage occurred.

Originally posted by Griff


And yes, I'm talking about recreating the scene. It's the only way to put it to rest. Why are we scared to do it?

Because the establishment knows that if we deliberately slammed a fuel-laden jet into a skyscraper scheduled for demo, that it would NOT "pancake" into a nice neat pile. Not one chance in a trillion.

Did a 767 run into it at the same time and sever half its pilings?
Was it built as a shallow truss building with no pilings in areas due to a generator being underneath it?
No…& No…
I guess it’s not the same thing then.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by corvin77

 

No, WTC 7 had WTC1 carve a chunk out of it.

You know I keep hearing this but I have searched and not been able to find ANY pictures of the damage to this building. Is it possible you can provide links , of course I don't need any to the two nist photos.

No skyscraper will ever collapse due to fire or airplane collision.

It's physically impossible.

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45


The photo of this is amazing. This fire dwarfs the piddling little fires we saw in the three WTC skyscrapers that suddenly collapsed at free-fall speed on 911.

www.latimes.com...

How many planes hit this one?
I missed that in the link it doesn't say?
How many?

reply to post by k-string


No, the collapse occurred because of major weakening at one point on the building, which allowed the weight of the floors above it to come smashing down on the floor below all at once. Thus causing a chain reaction as each floor was hit by the weight of all the floors above it. Buildings are designed to hold the weight of upper floors, but not to have that weight suddenly dropped on it from above.

Also it’s a truth movement untruth, that there have not been truss structure collapses due to fire. Simply do a search on google and you should find a number of them.

I am just curious, when Obama gets all settled in, and it comes out that this was NOT an inside job, are all the truth movement people out there finally going to give up on this stuff, or is Obamas team going to have been in on it to? You all going to remove all this nonsense from the net and free up countless terra bites of diskspace on servers? You all going to apologize to the rest of us who had to listen and argue this crap for the last eight years? You all going to give back the money you made selling books, DVD’s, website space?

I said skyscraper, not "truss structure."

reply to post by k-string


How many sky scrapers have ever been subjected to that (A) level of physical damage and (B) that intense of fire which was inaccessible to the fire department? When you find one, let me know cause then you might have a match.

The fire was not hot enough to weaken the steel beams. And I can think of plenty of buildings that were struck by airplanes. The structural damage wasn't as much as you seem to think it was. If you think the wings damaged any beams you are dreaming. Only the fuselage could have possibly done that, but it's not wide enough to weaken the building.

reply to post by k-string


You name a building that has been hit by a wide-body aircraft and is still intact? There was a hotel in some country that was once hit by a wide-body, and the whole center section of that building was taken straight to the ground. The only other buildings I have ever seen hit by aircraft are small aircraft. There is a major difference between a wide-body aircraft, a narrow-body aircraft, and a private aircraft, which is why we classify them in such a way. There is also a difference in the way that the World Trade Center was built and other shorter buildings. Because of its height the World Trade Center was actually weaker overall then many other shorter buildings that have to hold less stress. The fire was only one aspect of the damage that occurred to the WTC, there was also extensive physical damage.

reply to post by defcon5


The weight of the floors above couldn't just compress the steel columns.
Where are the steel columns? They just disintegrated because of gravity and a few tons of steel and concrete? Science fiction comes to my mind.

Please elaborate on where the steel columns went.

reply to post by mortje


If you hit a steel column with a couple hundred tons of aircraft grade aluminum traveling at close to 500knts, do you honestly think its going to stay in one piece or sever in half?

reply to post by defcon5


Exactly, not one piece!

So where are the huge pieces of metal. Or do you think they fall into tiny little metal particles? Lets assume they were weak enough to fall apart, you would have huge pieces of bended steel columns everywhere.

The fire department however stated that basically everything turned to dust. With big pools of molten metal at the bottom. Something melted that metal, it wasn't the kerosene, nor gravity of floors or plane. Please explain how it is scientifically possible to have those beams 'melted' or disappear.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
What data do you have to help recreate the conditions that day? Were there temperature sensors inside the damaged areas? Stop motion cameras transmitting interior pictures as the collapses began? Vibration sensors maybe? Do we have an accurate detailed description of which beams were compromised from the impact and which ones were only exposed to the fire? And of those, do we know which ones still had their full fireproofing and which ones did not?

Since a collapse happened in both situations at the towers, this minute information is obviously not as important as you make it out to be. Or we wouldn't have seen the same result from 2 different events. No? Then how do you figure?

For an accurate recreation, you would need all of the above information (and more) and we do not have it...we will NEVER have it.

Obviously it doesn't have to be that accurate if 3 totally different events can have 1 single result. No? Then how do you figure?

Don't give me the "we would have to recreate the exact scenario", when 3 different scenarios resulted in the same conclusion.

Again, this phenomenon has to be able to easily be recreated if 3 totally different scenarios can result in the same thing. Please. You insult my intelligence.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And amazingly enough, I could post the words of the men who actually did go through the steel looking for clues who said different. Do not mistake political grandstanding for science.

And amazingly enough, I can quote the engineers who say differently. Who would know more?

Political grandstanding. Please.