An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed)

Truther lie 1. The WTC was NOT designed to survive hits by planes flying at the speed and weight of those that hit them, Why do you think DeMartini would know anything, he had nothing at all to do with the construction of the WTC?

Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects,

truther lie 2 - that assumed the fireproofing stayed intact - which it did not

If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting,

here you show that you are very confused - you "forget" the South tower tilted before collapsing!

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors

Here you again show your lack of understanding of physics - it exerted downward pressure on the floor beneath it, causing that floor to collapse etc etc.

A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

completely meaningless, shows no understanding of how things work.

“Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

Yet another truther lie - have a look at a proper analysis of the siesmic charts
www.911myths.com...
it shows your claim to be a lie.

The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance,

Not that truther lie again - just look at a video of the WTC towers collapsing, you can clearly see the debris falling off the towers is falling at free fall speed, whilst the towers collapse is much slower than it.

Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it

yet another truther lie, they were talking about pulling the firefighting teams out of it... also totally ignoring that the fire brigade had a transit on the WTC 7 and knew that it would collapse.

and total collapse into its own footprint

Oh dear, yet another lie - how then were the Fiterman Hall building and the Verizon Building damaged then?

So all we have are the typical truther lies, ignoring the facts and just making things up.

After 10 long years of debate and analysis here is my final conclusion, pick whichever side u wish.

www.youtube.com...

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,” displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

Considering the circumstances, it was virtually impossible to rig WTC7 for demolition on 9/11. This suggests that Silverstein knew full well in advance the building had been set up for demolition before 9/11. How long before, is anybody's guess.

By the insurance carriers also paying out a ridiculously inflated settlement amount for WTC7 and not challenging coverage, nor investigating its collapse, they too must have been in on the gig. Since when do insurance companies pay billions of dollars in settlements without lifting a finger to investigate neither the coverage, nor the occurrence?

Ordinarily, a humongous insurance claim like this would go into litigation and take at least a decade to settle, or even longer. However, 9/11 not only spawned lightning quick building collapses, lightning quick conclusions by the media as to the guilty parties, a lightning quick invasion of Afghanistan and lightning quick non-Constitutional legislation like the Patriot Act, it also brought about lightning quick insurance settlements. Quick! Let's sweep everything under the rug before anyone notices.

Originally posted by dereks
Truther lie 1. The WTC was NOT designed to survive hits by planes flying at the speed and weight of those that hit them

How is this a truther lie? Where do you get your information from? Do you just call people liars for the fun of it? This is getting ridiculous.

NIST Report, Appendix Q:

Port Authority documents indicate that the impact of a
Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing
into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the
design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.
While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis, the
documents state that such a collision would result in
localized damage only, and that it would not cause
collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.

Source

Since a 707 flies faster than a 767, the lesser weight of a 707 actually comes closer to the weight of a 767 in the form of energy. Both planes are comparable in size and weight:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/af0ce5ab65dd.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by dereks
truther lie 2 - that assumed the fireproofing stayed intact - which it did not

Can you back up this claim before calling people liars? Thanks.

Originally posted by dereks
Yet another truther lie - have a look at a proper analysis of the siesmic charts
www.911myths.com...
it shows your claim to be a lie.

Actually, a more proper analysis by a Ph.D in the fields of geophysics and sound waves shows your claim to be false:

New Study of Seismic Data Reveals Explosives Were Used at WTC on 9/11

Originally posted by dereks
Not that truther lie again - just look at a video of the WTC towers collapsing, you can clearly see the debris falling off the towers is falling at free fall speed, whilst the towers collapse is much slower than it.

Your blatant and deliberate name-calling do you no justice, especially when great counter-arguments are presented.

It's not a "truther lie" that the towers were claimed to have collapsed in "about 10 seconds". The 9/11 Commission Report published the collapse times at "about 10 seconds". So, I guess that would be a "9/11 Commission lie", correct? We all know that the towers collapsed in about 13-15 seconds, which is still about or close to 10 seconds, and which is still near free-fall speeds.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report

Originally posted by dereks
yet another truther lie, they were talking about pulling the firefighting teams out of it.

Larry didn't say "pull out of it", he said "PULL IT", i.e., pull the building. Big difference there. Nowhere did he say pull the teams, pull them, or anything that would remotely suggest people or teams. He said PULL IT. PULL THE BUILDING. Clear?

Originally posted by dereks
So all we have are the typical truther lies, ignoring the facts and just making things up.

And you were just found to be the one making things up as I've posted the real facts with sources. You can either apologize for your childish accusations and admit you were wrong, or you can run away and not respond while looking amazingly foolish.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by dereks
Truther lie 1. The WTC was NOT designed to survive hits by planes flying at the speed and weight of those that hit them

How is this a truther lie? Where do you get your information from? Do you just call people liars for the fun of it? This is getting ridiculous.

All Truthers do is lie. Everybody knows that.

psik

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Why would the insurance companies pay out if they knew the collapse was suspect? Do they not care about money at all?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

Why would the insurance companies pay out if they knew the collapse was suspect? Do they not care about money at all?

they were probably in on it! wow, what a koinkadink, right?

reply to post by dereks

Here you again show your lack of understanding of physics - it exerted downward pressure on the floor beneath it, causing that floor to collapse etc etc.

Brilliant rebut. In all seriousness though, I think the point of contention (that JimFetzer was raising) is that as the upper-section pivots outwards away from its centre of gravity then it should have continued this displacement as long as the tower below was providing resistance to it and acting as a fulcrum as the conservation of angular momentum requires. I suspect it is highly improbable for the upper-section to have straightened-up after pivoting unless it was acted on by some force in the opposite direction in order for it to re-establish equilibrium. Also, you do not know enough about people on this forum (or Truthers in general) to be able to say they are lying. You only describe your own psychopathology by making such unsubstantiated assertions about people. Intentional scepticism is an essential part of the traditional scientific method. Why should sceptics of the official story be lying? Might they not simply be honest-minded people applying the traditional scientific method? If not, why not?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
An adequate theory of the demolition of the Twin Towers is going to have to be consistent with these findings:

The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Correct. THe buildings survived the impacts. It was the resulting uncontrolled fires coupled with the structural damage that caused the collapse of the WTC Towers.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

You think hydrocarbon fires burn around 500 deg. F? Please. That is blatently false.

www.fire.nist.gov...

Please direct your attention to the graph on pdf page 13. Please tell me what that says? Thanks.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

Optimal?

Were any of the samples taken from the impact zone?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.

Do you have a citation for that? I have NEVER heard of UL certifying steel for that long with no protection. Hell, most SFRM is only rated for 2,000 deg. F for 2 hours. And THAT is under ideal lab conditions.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.

Oh, you mean like the bowing of the exterior columns that were observed well before the collapse?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

Nope, All it needed to do was affect ONE floor, not 80 floors as a whole. You're treating the lower portion as one intact solid structure, which it is not.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

And William Rodriguez was not in any position to know when the impact happened to give it a frame of reference. He also said in the days after the collapse, that it was like someone was moving furniture around.

Now, tell me about this 50 ton hydraulic press. I am curious what that means.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

Again, Rodriguez was in no place to give a definitive frame of reference due to the fact he was in the basement. Steel transmits sound MUCH faster than air. So, the first explosion that he "heard" was most likely the impact itself.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

Appeal to authority noted. When does Charles plan on publishing his paper in any respectable journal? Maybe you could help him with the abstract? I can reccomend a few good journals if you would like.

Hint: These do NOT include Bentham or J.O.N.E.S. as both those journals are sham journals.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

Do you expect the towers to act like a tree?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.

Really? Explain the meteorite.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,” displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

Context there Jim. He was talking about the firefighters. "We've had such lossof life today" What is he talking about there? The death of other buildings?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes" equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot have been any "pancake collapse" of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition.

There were some parts of that pile that were 8+ stories high. Maybe you have missed them. Also, 7WTC did not have a basement, where 1&2 had HUGE basements. 7 stories IIRC.

Nice dodge BTW.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The more fragile and less dense object is not going to overcome the resistance of the less fragile and more dense object. The plane should have crumpled with some parts, such as the engines, entering the building, but the wings, the tail, bodies, seats and luggage should have broken off or fallen to the ground. This has been discussed rather extensively on the "Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?" thread, so consult it for more elaboration of my views.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

And you've ignored the posts over there too. I know I have asked a few questions over there, (specifically about the kinetic energy and the ability of the tower to resist that much energy) but you've conveniently ignored it. Maybe you'll address them now?

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


That is the point right there.

The airliners were less than 200 tons. The buildings were more than TWO THOUSAND TIMES the mass of the planes! We are supposed to BELIEVE the buildings could be TOTALLY OBLITERATED in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

Yep, now, do the math for the kinetic energy involved in the impact, and do the math for the heat energy released by the fuel, and then the heat energy for the resulting fires.

Hell, a bullet weighs about .25 ounces. Most people weigh about 140 lbs. Which translates to 2240 ounces.

So, a bullet weighs just 1/8960th of a person, and it will kill you. I wonder, how could something so small kill us? I mean, we outweigh the bullet MANY times over. But yet, I don't think you wanna stand in front of one, do you?

Completely illogical statement.
Does a bullet, which weighs 1/8960th of a person cause all the bones in the body to break and basically cremate so the body falls down into a lard ball?
Or does a bullet cause extreme interior damage to organs, muscles, etc and cause blood loss which in turn creates death?
Or it hits the heart or brain and the failure of either one of those cause death?

Try again.

It's an analogy. Way to miss the point though!

This was an unintended duplicate, so let me simply add that, just because different parties hold different opinions about complex and controversial issues like these does not mean that one of them is a liar. When they conflict, they cannot both be true, even though they might both be false. All of us are basing our beliefs on the evidence that is available to us in relation to the hypotheses it has dawned upon us to consider. We can expect to have a convergence in our conclusions only when we are considering the same body of evidence, the same sets of alternative explanations, and using the same rules of reasoning. So let's set the term "liar" to one side and do our best to figure out whose theory of the case is the best founded, provides the best explanation for all the available evidence, and therefore has the highest likelihood to be true? Calling each other names, alas, is really not an approach that is likely to expose the truth and reveal falsehoods, so let's devoted ourselves to that task.

reply to post by dereks

This is pretty bad. Frank DeMartini, the project manager, explained all of this and I have offered a comparison of Boeing 707s with Boeing 767s in "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", which is archived on the Scholars home page. I will give the link shortly. Plus the word "liar" is really out of place here. Lies require making assertions that are false and that you know to be false, which is certainly not the case here. These conclusions are supported by multiple experts and lines of proof, so spare me this rubbish about how they are obviously false and try to get your head around these facts that need to be explained if we are going to understand what happened to the Twin Towers. Is that OK? You can check it out at twilightpines.com... You need to become more familiar with the basic evidence.

reply to post by dereks

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by dereks
Truther lie 1. The WTC was NOT designed to survive hits by planes flying at the speed and weight of those that hit them

How is this a truther lie? Where do you get your information from? Do you just call people liars for the fun of it? This is getting ridiculous.

NIST Report, Appendix Q:

Port Authority documents indicate that the impact of a
Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing
into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the
design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.
While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis the
documents state that such a collision would result in
localized damage only, and that it would not cause
collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.

Source

I have bolded the part that you seem to have conveniently missed.

Sure. Give us your theory of how the Twin Towers were destroyed and let me see what I can do. Interestingly, a new book by Judy Wood has just appeared. I haven't seen it yet, but I received this announcement this morning:

WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Judy Wood, Ph.D.

Dr. Judy Wood’s book is finally out! The cost for a 500 page full colour hard back book is $44.95 after shipping in the USA, which is nothing considering how important this book is and how much my school text books cost.

Check it out here: www.wheredidthetowersgo.com...

Here is a promotional trailer, which you can share with others if you wish.

YouTube - Where Did The Towers Go?
www.youtube.com...

This book is of vast importance - the most detailed and illustrative study of what happened to the WTC buildings - and a look at the nature and some of the possible history behind the technology which was used to turn more than 90% of those buildings to microspheric iron-rich dust.

Please support it in some way, shape or form - even if only by forwarding or re-posting this message.

Thanks for reading this if you did!

Best wishes,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology


i]reply to post by FDNY343

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Sure. Give us your theory of how the Twin Towers were destroyed and let me see what I can do.

Simple really.

Fire + Structural damage - water = collapse.

You can read it more here.

www.wtc.nist.gov

No steel structure high-rise ever collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11--and, if our research is well-founded, it didn't happen on 9/11 either. I think you need to give this more thought. Have you read the points I have reiterated about the temperatures of the fires involved here? Because I can't see how you can use your handle if you don't know more about fires and buildings that you appear to possess in these posts. You do understand that NIST studies 236 samples of the steel from Ground Zero and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F and the other three not above 1200*F? Do you understand what that means for your theory of the case? I hope you will pay more attention to the evidence and make stronger arguments in your future posts, because provable false claims add nothing to the debate. Just go back and review the points I've made.

reply to post by FDNY343

Well, I've been looking for Judy's book and only received an announcement today. (I must admit that I missed your post until just now.) Do you know that I have been a huge fan of her work in the past, that I featured her on my radio programs around fifteen (15) times, and that I advocate the study of her theory of the case? I probably learned more about the Twin Towers from the study of her work than from any other source. I highly recommend that those with a serious interest visit her web site at drjudywood.com... to become with the astonishing array of evidence about the effects we have to explain that she has amassed. I am a fan of Judy and fascinated by her work.

reply to post by marwei2

Surely there is at least as much justification for concluding that you are actually the one who is misrepresenting the facts--and doing so deliberately!--since a society of experts, which includes physicists, pilots, mechanical, structural, and even aeronautical engineers has collectively concluded that the points I have made appear to be true. So if you are going to contest them, then you really need to have some foundation for doing so instead of making the wholly irresponsible claim that "truthers lie"! Given the weight of the evidence, that claim could more reasonably be made against you. I think it is childish to use this kind of language for those who are seeking the truth, so why don't you try to present your position in a more responsible and intellectually serious manner--by giving arguments to support it? I don't think that is asking too much. Give it a try for a change.

reply to post by dereks

reply to post by JimFetzer

No steel structure high-rise....

What does this mean? You have arbitrarily labeled this building as if from some source of authority. Does the label mean anything? No. In fact it is deceptive in that it implies that all high rise building that incorporate steel into their structure are alike and all react the same. This is not true.

...ever collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11--and, if our research is well-founded, it didn't happen on 9/11 either.

So? This is a very basic form of fallacy. Something supposedly never happened before so it can never happen the first time. You fail to mention that pre-9/11 no building constructed and designed like the towers had ever been subject to the forces they were subjected to on 9/11. And you have no "research".

I think you need to give this more thought. Have you read the points I have reiterated about the temperatures of the fires involved here? Because I can't see how you can use your handle if you don't know more about fires and buildings that you appear to possess in these posts.

And exactly where do you derive your knowledge of construction and engineering?

You do understand that NIST studies 236 samples of the steel from Ground Zero and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F and the other three not above 1200*F?

And?