What are the most glaring flaws in the Popular Mechanics "debunking" of 9/11?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Aluminum is quite possible of cutting steel if there is enough Ke available.


This is true. Airframes are built very sturdy and with enough speed it is entirely possible for aluminum to have cut steel. I have seen with my own eyes a straw driven like a nail into a telephone pole by tornado winds.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

That was a good and fair post.



Wow, gotta say something. That is unusual to see a person on your side of the fence (for lack of a better terminology) to admit something like that. You earn alot of respect for that.



Originally posted by getreadyalready

Here is the problem though. It is impossible to "prove" what temperature the fires were.


Correct. However, we know that burning hydrocarbon fires can and will reach 1800 deg. F quite easily. Can we PROVE that? No. Can we prove that other fires in simmilar situations have? Absolutely.


Originally posted by getreadyalready

We have the NIST report that says 250 to 400C was the highest sustained temperature, and they do so from samples taken from the impact area.


You need to download NCSTAR 1-3c and read section E 5 on page 47 of the PDF.



Originally posted by getreadyalready
We have youtube videos purporting to show heat signatures of around the same.


The problem with that, is the FLIR camera that was used, only goes to a certain degree. After that, even if the flames were 10,000 deg. C, it would still read the same on that camera as a 500 deg. C fire.



Originally posted by getreadyalready
We know the specifics of the fire, the accelerants and the air situation, and we have the smoke as evidence and it all seems to support the NIST reports estimate.


Estimates that they can PROVE. Not what is occuring out of sight.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
We also have the firemen choosing to rush up almost 100 flights of stairs, and they were the fire experts on the scene.


Agreed. People lives are in danger, and as such, there would be no other choice. There is always the risk that we would not get out. It's a risk we take every time we go into a fire.

(To answer your question from another thread, yes, I am a firefighter, and yes, I was with FDNY on 9/11)


Originally posted by getreadyalready
We also have hundreds or thousands of other fires from around the country and around the world that had hotter fuel sources and burned for much longer periods without collapsing.


Agreed. However, none with the same conditions as the WTC fires.
-All were fought by firefighters
-None had massive structural damage
-None had instant fires on 5+ floors
-None had thousands of gallons of accelerant



Originally posted by getreadyalready
So, I think the NIST physical evidence, and the circumstantial evidence all point toward a relatively low temperature fire, for a relatively short period of time, in a building that was built to the highest possible fire code ratings


No, again, it's what they could conclusively prove with the limited evidence available.

Secondly, are you referencing recent codes, or are you referencing the codes from the 1960's.

Also, remember that some of the codes were "circumvented" so to speak. Not ignored, but the design was considered acceptable.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
because it was the tallest, most highly occupied building in the most dense urban area in the country. It seems self-apparent to me that fire should have been the last suspect in the collapse.


As opposed to.......


Originally posted by getreadyalready
So, I believe the fire data speaks for itself, but if we choose to ignore the estimates of the experts and speculate about fire parameters that we have no proof for, then I still say fire does not lead to a pancake collapse, and a pancake collapse doesn't happen in a simultaneous fashion.


Ok. Since it was not a pancake collapse, it was a progressive collapse, we can agree.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
Choose any piece of the entire collapse puzzle and there is enough evidence to cause serious doubts about any one piece of the puzzle. Put all the pieces together and what are the chances of dozens of highly implausible things cascading into the event we all witnessed? I watched it live on television, and my coworker here watched it live from her office window in Manhatten! The building just went "limp" as she puts it and just collapsed onto itself like it had no bones. It went from a massive and rigid building to a bag of bones. I have personally spoken to people who were in Manhatten that day, and they all say the building just went limp. That is not a "pancake collapse."


Agreed again. But, it matters not, since we have experts (Bazant et al) who disagree with you and I.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Secondly, are you referencing recent codes, or are you referencing the codes from the 1960's.

Also, remember that some of the codes were "circumvented" so to speak. Not ignored, but the design was considered acceptable.


I posted my thoughts on the "circumvention" of codes in some other thread, but I do believe that could be a significant factor. It is probably too late to prove that now, but on a project the size of the WTC, imagine a dozen or more levels of "shortcut taking." Maybe they found a material that was just a little bit cheaper. Maybe they found a a dozen subs that did the job just a little bit cheaper. Maybe each guy from each sub took just a couple of shortcuts. One less rivet, one less bolt. Maybe the fire retardant just wasn't quite as thick as it should have been. Maybe the code enforcers and building inspectors were overworked and just initialed off on some things without looking closely.

Imagine just a little bit of shortcutting, over and over and over through dozens of layers of contractors from the General Contractor through the subs, the supers, and down to the poor smuck walking on the iron.

I believe that is an excellent argument that could be made in favor of the official story. But I am still on the other side of the fence, LOL!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The penthouse collapsed six seconds before


Sounds like another truster lie !

Wow a building just disintegrates into a tidy pile and collapses for some reason from the inside out because of tiny bits of damage and small fires, but of course this is all highly reasonable.


"small fires"?


Haven't you seen the photos.......they are NOT small fires!


And you think a hole spanning 10 floors is "tiny" bits of damage......Pleeeze!


edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by FDNY343
 

NYC fireman are well-acquainted with high-rise fires. They know what to expect from these fires.


But NYC fireman were NOT acquainted to jets full of aviation fuel hitting a tube-frame structural designed building!

Next.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


I beg to differ with that. Maybe our ATS fireman can attest to it better than me, but airplanes hitting high-rises is part of contingency planning, and fires that use petrochemical accelerants are common place, and they are familiar, or quickly become familiar with every type of construction technique in their precincts.

It may not be common, but within minutes of the first strike, they had plans for the building, and they knew what type of fire they were dealing with, and they were addressing the safety factors of battling the blaze.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Logical one
 


It may not be common, but within minutes of the first strike, they had plans for the building, and they knew what type of fire they were dealing with, and they were addressing the safety factors of battling the blaze.


That's the point though, it is not an expected or common event, and therefore any planning of such an event may well have been patchy, and certainly your average fire fighter would probably not have expected the towers to fall like they did, so I don't think your "The fireman would have known it would collapse" is particularly valid one.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)
.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


I appreciate what you guys are trying to say. I try to write with the layman in mind, so let’s try to keep it simple so readers don’t get confused and discouraged with the thread. In my short time here I’ve run into FDNY343 on other threads. On one he argued the viability of Aluminum Bullets and Aluminum Sledge Hammers, exposing his ignorance about material densities but when confronted he just disappears and goes to another thread.

This is important information. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead now, and more are joining that grim roster by the hour. To defend the OS means defending their wars. With that in mind, accurate information is essential, and you guys are being disingenuous to say the least.

You are saying that regardless of mass and density of material, if you apply enough Kinetic Energy (KE) to an object…IE, make it go fast enough, it will cut through anything. In this example, you are arguing that a wingtip made of a lightweight and relatively soft metal like aluminum, when traveling at a certain velocity, will slice through very dense and massive structural steel, causing the plane-like cutout hole as depicted on TV.

This is only possible in Hollywood, not in the real world.

Let’s use a real world example most of our readers would understand, then we can delve into your calculations comparing density of materials as well the KE , M and V of horizontally-supported 14”structural steel columns, and lightweight aluminum wings.

For our example, how many of us as kids have ever hit a telephone pole with a baseball bat? Hit it hard enough and you will injure your wrists. The velocity of the bat and the Kinetic Energy (KE) applied by your swinging motion, changes the INSTANT the bat comes in contact with the telephone pole. At this point the KE is still there, but the velocity of the bat has been stopped by the pole, so the KE will travel down the path of the least resistance.

This is where the density of the materials and mass should be considered. The reason you hurt yourself when you hit the pole with the bat is because even though the density of materials are comparable, the mass of the bat is FAR less than that of the telephone pole, making the BAT and eventually your wrists the path of least resistance.

Increasing the velocity of the bat only ensures the bat and the pole will need to absorb more Kinetic Energy at the moment of impact.

Folks also like to talk about the straw and the oak tree myth, and it is just that. In high winds trees would blow partially over opening cracks in their trunks, and flying straw would get caught in the cracks when the trees would straighten up, causing people to believe the wind had blown the straw through the trunks. Mass and density of material rule this equation and even those frauds at the Discovery channel had to admit it, whatever that’s worth.

However in this case the straw is the wing and the tree is the tower but in your argument you're saying the straw hit the tree sideways with such velocity that it severed the tree trunk.

For those who would like more detailed information, make sure you consider the Kinetic Energy, mass, velocity AND density of material when considering this question. Here’s a link to Wikipedia which has a handy chart for comparing Ultimate tensile strength of materials. Note the densities listed. Also keep in mind that a jet wing doesn’t contain the same amount of material as the steel column would, and we’re talking about many steel columns supported by spandrel plates backed by the steel and concrete floors, in turn supported by central columns and more exterior columns, and only one straw…er…wing.


en.wikipedia.org...

The mass of a jet is not what we're talking about here...the jet's combined mass is only derived by the sum of it's individual parts. This means the wing from the engine to the tip, is far less massive than other parts of the jet. Filling it with fuel does not increase the density of the aluminum wing, it adds weight, and mass to the wing, but only as long as the wing can maintain it's integrity, so like a big water balloon, it would burst on impact.

Here is the description of damage to a 767 wing caused by a single bird. You'd have to agree, a bird is a wee bit less massive than laterally supported steel columns:

www.airliners.net...

Posted Tue May 16 2006 20:03:44 your local time (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 12392 times: Quote: Hokkaido International Airlines, the Sapporo-based carrier known as Air Do, said Tuesday that birds hit one of its Boeing 767 aircraft in midair Monday night, leaving a hole in one of the plane's main wings. According to the airline, the two-engine jet, which had left Tokyo's Haneda airport, was about to land at Sapporo's New Chitose Airport around 8:45 p.m. when birds collided with its right wing, creating a hole about 30 centimeters wide. No one was injured in the incident, but it caused Air Do to cancel a total of 15 flights between the two cities, the carrier said.


Here is a video which shows what happens to a real wing when it bumps a telephone pole. Although the plane is going much slower than the TV cartoon we were shown on 911, bear in mind that increasing velocity simply means more Kinetic Energy needs to be absorbed by both materials on impact.

www.youtube.com...

Here is a link with several of the impossible scenarios.
911 Hoax


The wings of a Boeing 767 are swept back approximately 35 degrees. This means wings do not strike the steel wall “flush” during the milliseconds of the crash process. Engines and wing roots impact first, almost simultaneously, and the wing tips, which are 40 feet back, hit a fraction of a second later. The official theory must be that wing roots and engines break through columns and spandrel plates following penetration of the “powerful” nose and fuselage, while wings stay intact to burst subsequent columns, floors and spandrel plates further away from the fuselage. The only way for tips to reach into the building and enter the “Hoffman shredding stage” is for the wings to remain intact and plow or “saw” through the steel columns and floors like an angled carpenters cut in the progressive fragmentation process (thanks to Gerard Holmgren for this point).


The official story claims a wing sliced through steel creating the damage shown in the photo below.



However the Naudet video clearly shows the slice marks were not there after the jet allegedly entered the tower. Once again, I'll give the link which shows still shots from the movie which show charges cutting the exterior columns AFTER the alleged impact.

letsrollforums.com...




The cartoon cutout of a plane is only possible with explosives.

Since this thread is all about what the Popular Mechanics hit piece missed, and to keep you guys busy, you can pick up where they left off by using your calculations to show how aluminum can cut steel when applying the proper amount of KE. The government claims it is so. Ignoring the images of the explosives cutting the plane outline of course, I'm looking for proof

Here is a link that describes the structure of a wing and even provides the fracture toughness of the alloy which can be used as a starting point in your calculations.

www.mae.ufl.edu...

I can see you already have all the NIST documentation, so you should be able to drum up the figures for the tower steel.


KDNY343 is looking for investors in a start up company which makes aluminum bullets and sledge hammers. You guys should pool your money.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

You are saying that regardless of mass and density of material, if you apply enough Kinetic Energy (KE) to an object…IE, make it go fast enough, it will cut through anything. In this example, you are arguing that a wingtip made of a lightweight and relatively soft metal like aluminum, when traveling at a certain velocity, will slice through very dense and massive structural steel, causing the plane-like cutout hole as depicted on TV.



Errr but it wasn't "very dense and massive structural steel"

The twin towers had hollow tube steel bearing walls, purposely designed to be relatively lightweight to be more flexible to the wind.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The penthouse collapsed six seconds before


Sounds like another truster lie !


Nope, the trusters have nothing to do with it, and in fact they're the ones who keep putting their heads in the sand and pretend that it isn't true. The reason is obvious- the trusters don't want to believe their "secret controlled demolitions" conspiracy stories are false so they just make up stuff as they go along that suits their purpose. That's why they always snip that part off of the video.

Here is the full video of the Pentagon collapse. You can see right away from the broken windows how deep the penthouse section collapsed into the interior. The trusters will always mindlessly trust the nonsense those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shovelling out but this video is worth a thousand words.

Unmolested video of the WTC 7 collapse



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


I have to give you that one, because I still don't believe they collapsed the way the supposedly did! I am certain the firemen never dreamed they would collapse that way, and here we are almost 10 years later, and a large swath of us still don't believe they collapsed that way.

I'm not sure if that helps your argument or mine though?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



You are saying that regardless of mass and density of material, if you apply enough Kinetic Energy (KE) to an object…IE, make it go fast enough, it will cut through anything.

Thats a fact.

In this example, you are arguing that a wingtip

Why do you keeping saying the "wingTIP"? It wasn't the tip - it was the leading edge of the wing and you make it sound like the wings were hollow metal beer cans, there was a frame structure under that aluminum skin.

made of a lightweight and relatively soft metal like aluminum, when traveling at a certain velocity, will slice through very dense and massive structural steel, causing the plane-like cutout hole as depicted on TV.

Exactly! Now you get it. By the way, cut out wasn't really plane like.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by Yankee451

You are saying that regardless of mass and density of material, if you apply enough Kinetic Energy (KE) to an object…IE, make it go fast enough, it will cut through anything. In this example, you are arguing that a wingtip made of a lightweight and relatively soft metal like aluminum, when traveling at a certain velocity, will slice through very dense and massive structural steel, causing the plane-like cutout hole as depicted on TV.



Errr but it wasn't "very dense and massive structural steel"

The twin towers had hollow tube steel bearing walls, purposely designed to be relatively lightweight to be more flexible to the wind.



Are you being intentionally misleading? "relatively lightweight" to what pray tell? The Core Columns?

How about relative to the wing?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Logical one
 


I have to give you that one, because I still don't believe they collapsed the way the supposedly did! I am certain the firemen never dreamed they would collapse that way, and here we are almost 10 years later, and a large swath of us still don't believe they collapsed that way.

I'm not sure if that helps your argument or mine though?


But let's just say for arguments sake it was a controlled demolition........any demolition professional will tell you that there will always be cables, strapping and anchors left over in the rubble........any controlled demolition of such tall buildings would have been littered with these items.
How come there is no evidence of such items in the rubble?
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 



You are saying that regardless of mass and density of material, if you apply enough Kinetic Energy (KE) to an object…IE, make it go fast enough, it will cut through anything.

Thats a fact.

In this example, you are arguing that a wingtip

Why do you keeping saying the "wingTIP"? It wasn't the tip - it was the leading edge of the wing and you make it sound like the wings were hollow metal beer cans, there was a frame structure under that aluminum skin.

made of a lightweight and relatively soft metal like aluminum, when traveling at a certain velocity, will slice through very dense and massive structural steel, causing the plane-like cutout hole as depicted on TV.

Exactly! Now you get it. By the way, cut out wasn't really plane like.


The "cartoon" cutout of a plane includes slices from the alleged wings...impossible and if you're saying it is possible, I'm all for you proving it. I've provided plenty of examples to show wings are simply not that strong, and
I'm still waiting for answers from you on other threads...maybe you can get your fake sister to explain it all to us, but your bleating "that's a fact" impresses me naught.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451



Are you being intentionally misleading? "relatively lightweight" to what pray tell? The Core Columns?

How about relative to the wing?


Err methinks you're the one being misleading!

Relatively lightweight as compared to the more conventionally built Empire State building.........remember the Twin Towers were one of the first to employ the tube-frame structural design.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by Yankee451



Are you being intentionally misleading? "relatively lightweight" to what pray tell? The Core Columns?

How about relative to the wing?


Err methinks you're the one being misleading!

Relatively lightweight as compared to the more conventionally built Empire State building.........remember the Twin Towers were one of the first to employ the tube-frame structural design.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


Oh, so the Empire State Building collided with the twin towers?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451


Oh, so the Empire State Building collided with the twin towers?


I think you lost something in translation buddy!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


>sigh



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by FDNY343
 


One hour of hydrocarbon fire, even with chimney effect, is not enough to weaken thousands of tons of steel to the point of complete failure, period. Not even enough time for the heat to transfer to the steel.




With all that steel acting like a gigantic heat sink, the OS is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

Go ahead replace your CPU heat-sink with a super Steel Heat-sink. WARNING, this will cook your CPU; don't do it.

Steel is not a heat sink; look it up. Wiki knows! One hour of an office fire is enough to destroy the strength of steel after the insulation was knocked off due to Kinetic energy impact. Physics prove it.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join