Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition on 9/11

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13

 

The link you sent is pure guess work. Anybody can sit back and make guesses as to what happened. The quantitative analysis is shallow to say the least.

What should have happened is that all of the debris needed to be catalogued and analyzed. (The NIST only had a small amount of debris to work with.) Then scholars and high steel contractors from around the world would need to debate and form consesus.

But we didn't get a thorough explanation. What we have is the word of W, debunkers and popular mechanics.

There is a difference between sophistry and sound scientific analysis.

By the way when someone has to rely on 'expert testimony' to back up there beliefs it shows they don't really know what they are talking about. Scientific opinion can be bought and sold. Scientists will say anything for a grant.

Can you answer: How many kilograms of frame would have to lose strength in order to initiate collapse? How many joules would be required to heat the material to this point? How much heat transfer went into the surrounding environment? Why don't blacksmiths use dimentional lumber for their forges? Why is it necessary for a blacksmith to use a bellows?

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Deuteronomy 23:13]

The government never proved their case. Any good lawyer could put reasonable doubt about the government's story into any fairly selected jury.

Why I Find The NIST Collapse Analysis Hard To Believe


Properties of Steel Shafts

Metal is resilient. A steel shaft can be bent to a point but it will still return to it's original shape. This is an easy phenomenon to observe in metal springs. A steel shaft has to bend so far before it will be distorted past a point of no return. It is an easy observation to confirm that metal shafts can withstand great forces with respect to their size.

Consider a #16 common framing nail: Generally, a 24 ounce hammer is used to drive a #16 nail into dimentional framing lumber. A #16 weighs about .3 ounces therefore the hammer weighs about 80 times more than the nail. According to the building codes where I come from a #16 is required to withstand 50 lbs of force in order to get it to begin to move once set into framing lumber. Therefore it must take more than 50 lbs of force to drive it into the lumber and set it in the first place.

So, I have shown that a steel shaft can withstand forces from very much larger transiting masses at high velocity and maintain dimentional integrety; they will still hold there shape and compressive strength.

It's fairly easy to bend the nail with a crooked hit. But if the hammer were smaller it would become more difficult not only to drive the nail but also to bend it. A 10 ounce cabinet hammer is 33 times heavier than the #16 nail but it's very hard to drive the nail with such a light hammer. It is also a lot harder to bend the nail with a crooked hit. Imagine using a hammer which weighs 2ounces. Although the hammer is better than 6 times heavier than the nail I doubt anyone could drive the nail or bend it with a strike.

Basic Iron Frame Construction

The frame of a skyscraper is steel, which is predominately iron, like a nail. The weight is supported by load bearing vertical steel shafts. The shafts are held plum (90 degree angle from ground) by steel cross members and lots of them.

Progressive Collapse Scenario

Vertical support becomes weak due to fire and collision damage so the weight above the damaged support comes down. It gains momentum as it falls breaking loose more of the structure which begins to fall, also, adding to the momentum. This process continues until there is no frame visible and the whole structure, over 400 meters high, is in a heap no higher than 25 meters. (25 meter figure from Bazant/Zhou; Why Did The Towers Fall. It has been contested.)

So, the top of the building became like a hammer and struck with destructive force the lower part of the building.

Consider the south tower. According to the NIST it broke off at around 2/3 up the length of the building. So the “hammerhead”weighed less than ½ the “nail” below.

Imagine striking a #16 common with a hammer that weighed .15 ounces! Would you expect to bend or break the nail with such a small hammer?

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
Consider the south tower. According to the NIST it broke off at around 2/3 up the length of the building. So the “hammerhead”weighed less than ½ the “nail” below.

Imagine striking a #16 common with a hammer that weighed .15 ounces! Would you expect to bend or break the nail with such a small hammer?

Two main differences. A hammer is pushing a nail down into wood.

In the WTC tower the top 1/3 didn't push the lower 2/3rds down into a piece of wood



When you watch the collapse the "hammer" was not hitting one giant solid nail. it was hitting a largely hollow steel support system that was put together piece by piece.

Also in the collapse the falling portion of the building didn't hit a solid nail. It hit a building that was put together floor by floor piece by piece. Held together by things (like welds and bolts and trusses) that are not nearly as strong as solid steel support beams.


www.ajdesigner.com...
convert-to.com...
1 pound = 0.45359237 kilograms

a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane.

a 100,000 - 136,000 kg airplane Is traveling at 223 m/s

F=MA 2.23 million netwons of force.


en.wikipedia.org...
275 or 355 denotes the yield strength in newtons per square millimetre.

355,00 newtons per square meter is the yeild strength of structural steel.





Now how much did 30 floors of the WTC tower weigh?

www.tms.org...
says 500k tons

hypertextbook.com...
says 450k tons

architecture.about.com...
the WTC towers were 110 stories

450k TONS (total weight) / 110 stories = 4000 tons per floor.

The top 1/3rd of the WTC weighed about 120000 tons.

120k tons is 109,000,000 KG. falling downward at 8.9 m/s is

2,230,000 = estimate of the amount of force in the plane


968,873,302 = estimate of the amount of force in the falling top 1/3rd of the tower.

434 times the amount of force. What would the WTC tower look like if it got hit with 434 airplanes? That's hitting each floor of the WTC tower with 3.9 airplanes.

If you hit each floor of the WTC with 3.9 110 ton 500 mile per hour airplanes it would be a big pile of rubble.




[edit on 18-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Quoting Mddle East expert , from the OP :

“My guess is that ... "

I guess that pretty much sums it up , doesn't it ?

At last , we know the facts .

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
The government never proved their case. Any good lawyer could put reasonable doubt about the government's story into any fairly selected jury.

I agree. No one has proven a case. Just evidence that supports many different theories.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

So, I am Nazi now? I must look into that, perhaps they were onto something...



[edit on 18-6-2010 by Stewie]

And there's the ultimate destination of the Truth Movement.

Grubby, stupid people who need simple answers to complex questions and somebody to hate.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I really don't understand that comment.
I posted an unofficial story. Yes, I think it is plausible.
Conspiracies DO exist, they are quite common. Most people, including you, have conspired with others to accomplish something.
The control of the currency is the absolute control of YOU.
BTW, I am not your "adversary", your adversaries are much smarter than I am. They DO control you indirectly by controlling the money supply. They just happen to call themselves Jews. It is their shield, like Rothschild, the "red shield".
The truth about what happened on 911 will never change. It may be obfuscated, distorted, embellished, and diluted with b.s., but the truth IS there. I am quite sure I am VERY close.

And, YOU cannot prove me wrong. YOU can only call me NAZI, I suppose because that is the cool thing to do at the moment.
I don't know.
www.sweetliberty.org...

Originally posted by Alfie1


The world's most prominent mental institution has told me that all truthers are suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

just because you're paranoid,
don't mean they;re not after you.

In all seriousness, your post is off topic, non sequitur, and in general reeks of ignorance.

reply to post by jprophet420


I don't know why some truthers are so sensitive about my remark. Do many of you fear, deep down, you are going nuts ? It is said that if you think you are going nuts then you are not really. But that is not true.

Anyway, if you had looked back you would have seen I made the remark tongue in cheek . It wasn't entirely off topic because it was a spoof based on the allegation that "the worlds most prominent construction co. " had said something but the company, like my mental institution, could not be named. So my remark and the statement in the OP are equally worthless.

The thing is there wasn't enough investigations into the case to herald some significant information. The whole WTC site was gone by September 29th. Only few pieces were left to be analyzed.

Ground zero should have been locked until the we got solid information. There should have been the government investigator, a public investigator, and a mediator from a neutral country. That way you know there is no bias nor would there be any room for putting people into compromising situation.

If you can't see anything fishy with 9/11 than you need to take a step back from whatever party your with, whatever your religion is, and from your nation. Just gaze at the evidence and logic through the eyes of a mediator.

The reason you have much bickering now is because your nation is sliced into so many pieces that the elite have the power to play you against each other. That is what is happening.

You should be backing each other up and not siding with governments. You don't want another investigation, but most of the victims families wanted one. How about we do it for them? We at least owe them that much.

reply to post by Equinox99


You can source this?:

The whole WTC site was gone by September 29th. Only few pieces were left to be analyzed.

I am assuming you mean 29th September 2001?? That struck me as different from what I remember, so I did some fact-checking, and found this article:

www.usatoday.com...

''Let me remind you that the recovery effort will not finish on May 30,'' Bloomberg said, noting that debris removed from the site will continue to be examined at a Staten Island landfill.

Just wondering if conspiracy theory websites are spreading that dreck??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And there's always trustworthy Wiki for further research....

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh, and I copied this photo too, from same Wiki link...for emphasis.

Caption says picture taken 17 days after the attacks...so that would be 28th September, 2001:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a928fc6d6b45.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 19 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by jprophet420

 

I don't know why some truthers are so sensitive about my remark. Do many of you fear, deep down, you are going nuts ? It is said that if you think you are going nuts then you are not really. But that is not true.

Anyway, if you had looked back you would have seen I made the remark tongue in cheek . It wasn't entirely off topic because it was a spoof based on the allegation that "the worlds most prominent construction co. " had said something but the company, like my mental institution, could not be named. So my remark and the statement in the OP are equally worthless.

I'm not sensitive to your remark nor am I a truther. I'm simply an independent citizen looking for a new investigation to succeed the one that has failed. The OP's story is not by a longshot worthless.

Both posts are hearsay, but only one is worthless.

reply to post by weedwhacker


My apologies, I meant May 11th. Thanks for clearing that up!

2nd.

"So my remark and the statement in the OP are equally worthless."

You're admitting you are using up needless broadband and posting a worthless statement? What exactly was the point of your worthless statement? If you are making an analogy with a journalist who was quoting what someone said off the record, I fail to see the analogy. A construction/demolition company has something of value to bring to the table when it comes to 9/11, even if their comments are "off the record".

The only reason you bring a mental institution into the equation is to demean and mock. And if that is not bad enough, you continue to play the mental illness card by stating are truthers afraid they are going crazy deep down inside? Comments such as yours are only made by individuals who lack the intellect and ability to properly discuss and debate an issue.

You may not want to delude yourself into believing that your play of the mental illness card is a reaction to open minded individuals being overly sensitive.

Originally posted by jprophet420


I'm simply an independent citizen looking for a new investigation to succeed the one that has failed.

A team of professors at MIT did a new, independant investigation, about the collapse of the twin towers.

web.mit.edu...

reply to post by iamcpc


Yes, but they didn't come out with the right answer.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Yes, but they didn't come out with the right answer.

I think it's very strange that some people blindly believe that it was IMPOSSIBLE that the twin towers collapse from airplanes and fire. Even when presented with an independant scientific investigation that presents very strong evidence that it could have been caused by airplanes and fire they still blindly believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane with a gagillion tons of force to damage a skyscraper enough to make it fall. Even after a team of MIT professors thoroughly examine the impacts, show very detaled data and numbers and explain and show their work and the physics equasions they used to do their work to estimate the damage caused by the impacts and say that it is POSSIBLE that the airplane damage to the south tower was severe enough to cause the collapse.

I ask these people, who blindly believe that it was IMPOSSIBLE, for an airplane impact to damage a skyscraper enough to cause it to collapse a question:

How much damage was done to the twin towers by the airplane impacts?

They don't know. They say it was not nearly enough or it was way more than it should have been or anything like that.

The first thing that ANYONE should do when invesigating the collapse of a building that was HIT BY AN AIRPLANE (and set on fire) is to determine HOW MUCH DAMAGE WAS DONE BY THE AIRPLANE (and the the fire).

Yet many people determine what caused the collapse of a building that was hit by an airplane without even trying to figure out if the airplane broke a few windows or broke a few dozen support beams.

1. The twin towers were hit with airplanes.
2. The twin towers were set on fire.
3. The twin towers collapsed.

I have to investigate why they collapsed so that way we will build a building that won't collapse in that situation. I'm not going to look at how much damage was caused by the airplanes. I'm not going to look at how much damage was caused by the fire. I'm to look at the collapse, determine that it looks like a demolition, and publish my report saying:

The WTC towers were built just fine. They airplanes and the fire had nothing to do with the collapse of the towers. The only reason the towers collapsed is because they were demolished with nano thermite, energy beams, and explosives.


My boss says:

"Why didn't you determine how much damage was caused by the airplanes and fire? Are you serious that after a building that was hit by an airplane and set on fire collapse is not even POSSIBLE that it's what MIGHT have caused the collapse??????"

I quickly retort:

"Those don't matter at all because it is IMPOSSIBLE that they caused the collapse"






[edit on 19-6-2010 by iamcpc]

[edit on 19-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by jprophet420


I'm simply an independent citizen looking for a new investigation to succeed the one that has failed.

A team of professors at MIT did a new, independant investigation, about the collapse of the twin towers.

web.mit.edu...

The downloadable full report contains eight articles that deal with the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center (WTC) disaster and its consequences, written by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Amazing how your claim differs from the claim in the first paragraph of the work. Glad to see you read and understood it.

reply to post by Stewie


Sorry, I don't happen to think that Jewish people are my "adversaries". I'm well aware of why you believe this, but it's total nonsense.