WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

reply to post by tristaneldritch


Thank you for your post, you have once again proven my point that people that believe the government's account are cretins.

reply to post by Gando702

1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed. To say that they shouldn't have fallen because they were designed to withstand a hit from any plane is a bit ridiculous.

Not true the 707 is almost the same size as a 767 less that 10' difference in height, width, and length.

2. The steel columns lost a considerable amount of their strength due to the intense heat cause by the fires inside the building. They wouldn't remain standing, as they're still bolted to the trusses and concrete slabs, and by being weakened by the fire, were simply bent down and snapped by the weight of the collapse.

Not true the fires (from the planes and office stuff alone) were only half the temp. needed to weaken the steel to failure.

3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete. Stuff breaks. The farther it falls, and the more it has falling on top of it, the more unrecognizable it's going be after the collapse.

I assume you are talking about the dust, if you look at the videos the dust begins at the top prior to pulverization from the fall.

Comparing temperature charts to grainy pictures of flames from the fires, and claiming that the fires must have been hot enough to constitute thermite is silly. I can light a match, and it will have several of the colors on those charts, and the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees.

What about the termite in the dust as well as the iron spheres.

Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges. The building was weakened, burned, and collapsed. The building had nowhere to go but down. Anyone claiming that the second tower should have "tipped over" because of the angle, is naive at best. It's still being held together by the core columns, and even being weakened, still held the building together. The building simply had too much inertia to go anywhere but straight down.

According to the OS these core columns were severed.

reply to post by Viking9019

Now i'm no expert but how could the fire of done so much damage to the base of the tower when the fires were on the upper floors and the fire men said they ahd the fires under the control?

The base wasn't in trouble until the upper floors came bursting through the ceiling.

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican

According to the OS these core columns were severed.

I don't believe that they stated ALL of them were severed.

Had all of them been severd the collapse would have been instant.

reply to post by samkent


Well you need all of them severed for a simetric collapse, I thought it was clear enough by now. Otherwise the towers might have fallen the way expected, sideways, and leaving 60-70% of both towers still standing.

My first post ever on ATS and, as an industrial contractor and construction manager, i really just want to chime in on some inaccuracies I am seeing....
1) Architects are designers, not engineers. They do NOT have any structural design capacities in most projects. Architects draw pretty pictures, then structural engineers design how to make the pretty pictures stand.

2) Construction managers also have no "engineering" responsibilities. They are schedulers and manage time lines, costs, sub contractors etc. They know nothing of the design capacities on a building project. Their sole responsibility to to execute the engineer and architects designs, while maintaining the time line and cost structure.

3) The WTC had structural concrete, which was self supported with internal rebar mats and bar joist trusses. These trusses are very weak and only provide supplemental support to the structural concrete slabs. The concrete slabs would self destruct under lower heat, due to expansion of the internal rebar mats. Fires frequently cause this effect to structural concrete, diminishing its design strength.

I am a truther. I believe this to be a red flag. I think it was allowed to happen, but not a controlled demo. I believe these towers could have fallen due to the impact and subsequent fires.

luckily i am here to correct your misguided beliefs.

1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed.

here is a scale representation of the differences between the planes.

2. The steel columns lost a considerable amount of their strength due to the intense heat cause by the fires inside the building.

actually most of the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes according to FEMA, and NIST didn't find evidence of fire damage over 250C. not surprising since most of the rubble was thrown away and melted down in a few weeks. 80% of the steel was never examined.
www.fema.gov...

3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete.

according to newton's third law, the equal and opposite reaction of interacting bodies, the top floors could at most destroy their own weight before being completely demolished. yet, we see the floors survived practically undamaged all the way down. this would require the removal of resistance.

4. Comparing temperature charts to grainy pictures of flames from the fires, and claiming that the fires must have been hot enough to constitute thermite is silly. I can light a match, and it will have several of the colors on those charts, and the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees.

i'm actually taken aback at your lack of understanding. the color of fire is due to the glow atoms give off. it is a chemical reaction. burning copper gives a green glow, for instance. metal color to temperature is based on energy levels and is consistent. molten metal is backed up by thermal images from nasa a few WEEKS after showing surface rubble temperature around 1200F. the temperatures below were estimated to be between 2 and 3 times hotter.

5. Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges. The building was weakened, burned, and collapsed. The building had nowhere to go but down.

no. the top floors were weakened as heat rises. the bottom floors were more sturdy and had a much greater mass. the force of gravity was pulling on the upper floors, but the lower floors were providing an equal and opposite reaction much greater than the top floors were generating. truth be told, the top floors shouldn't have fallen at all, but even if they did, they would have been destroyed before they demolished their weight, and the energy would have dissipated, just as newton's third law states.

any questions?

reply to post by samkent


This leads us to another issue altogether the core columns were 4" thick steel I beams (that is 3 4" thick slabs of steel welded to form the beam) I highly doubt that an aircraft could sever even one. A plane hitting a row of these beams would be the equivalent of trying to knock down a wall with a grapefruit or and egg. Something solid verses something with a shell, which one wins.

The fire wasn't hot enough to do the least bit of damage to the 46 verticle steel standing columns that ran through out the height of those buildings. The collapse we see is simply impossible. I said impossible as an ironworker.
I know this for a fact. 20 years in the trade.

reply to post by Gando702


Congratulations for coming around I'm an architect (over 25 years experience) and as you might expect have many structural engineers as friends. We're all mystified at our colleagues that perpetuate this myth that 9-11 was anything other than what it appears to be. The collapses were completely logical and understandable given what happened that day (especially if you look into the structural system used in these buildings) and the so-called "evidence" otherwise is laughable. By the way, don't believe those who cite "tons" of architects and engineers that believe this nonsense, there's only a small minority that do.

2 is the smoking gun to outline the dishonesty of the arguing. Modern skyscrapers are built to withstand a fire taking into account that all the combustible material is consumed. This is possible, because the heat is dissipated throughout the structure, the steelstructure being interconnected with each other.

1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed. To say that they shouldn't have fallen because they were designed to withstand a hit from any plane is a bit ridiculous.

Common mistake made by 911 deniers. The Boeing 747 is indeed far larger than a 707. However the towers were hit by a 767, which is about the same size as a 707.

Originally posted by SavedOne
reply to post by Gando702

 

Congratulations for coming around

I'm an architect (over 25 years experience) and as you might expect have many structural engineers as friends. We're all mystified at our colleagues that perpetuate this myth that 9-11 was anything other than what it appears to be. The collapses were completely logical and understandable given what happened that day (especially if you look into the structural system used in these buildings) and the so-called "evidence" otherwise is laughable. By the way, don't believe those who cite "tons" of architects and engineers that believe this nonsense, there's only a small minority that do.

Completely logical to see the top portion of one tower tilt sideways as it was going to fall, to suddenly forget it had some lateral momentum and goes straight down through the 40+ core columns, wich were supposedly fine under the impact zone.

Originally posted by Cassius666
2 is the smoking gun to outline the dishonesty of the arguing. Modern skyscrapers are built to withstand a fire taking into account that all the combustible material is consumed. This is possible, because the heat is dissipated throughout the structure, the steelstructure being interconnected with each other.

I tried to draw attention to that same issue but no one has the guts to take it really, all those steel beams interconnected, it makes a great heat sink. But what do I know, I dont come here claiming to be engineer-architect-whatever.

reply to post by SavedOne


1588 people in that field is a small portion? what are totals of those working in the field. I think 1588 professionals doubting the OS raises some good questions. Have you reviews the A&E for 9/11 truth evidance?

Originally posted by SavedOne
reply to post by Gando702

 

Congratulations for coming around

I'm an architect (over 25 years experience) and as you might expect have many structural engineers as friends. We're all mystified at our colleagues that perpetuate this myth that 9-11 was anything other than what it appears to be. The collapses were completely logical and understandable given what happened that day (especially if you look into the structural system used in these buildings) and the so-called "evidence" otherwise is laughable. By the way, don't believe those who cite "tons" of architects and engineers that believe this nonsense, there's only a small minority that do.

This sounds like a crock to me. You just happen to know some of the small percentage that do. Please your as bad as the original story tellers themselves.

Originally posted by Saltarello

Originally posted by Cassius666
2 is the smoking gun to outline the dishonesty of the arguing. Modern skyscrapers are built to withstand a fire taking into account that all the combustible material is consumed. This is possible, because the heat is dissipated throughout the structure, the steelstructure being interconnected with each other.

I tried to draw attention to that same issue but no one has the guts to take it really, all those steel beams interconnected, it makes a great heat sink. But what do I know, I dont come here claiming to be engineer-architect-whatever.

Yeah I am about done with conspiracy sites beyond entertainment value, at least as far as the technical details go. This isnt side specific. However at least the truthers dont claim to have an Ph.D afore they mess up 5th grade math. Engineers and architects have spoken on the matter. The reply has to come from architects and engineers, not the internetz. NIST refuses to defend its work. That about settles it for me.

Originally posted by randyvs
The fire wasn't hot enough to do the least bit of damage to the 46 verticle steel standing columns that ran through out the height of those buildings. The collapse we see is simply impossible. I said impossible as an ironworker.
I know this for a fact. 20 years in the trade.

edit on 20-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

First let's just be clear, iron workers are not professional designers. You may know plenty about fastening structural members together, but that doesn't mean you understand structural loading and the impact of fire on structure. The fact is that the fire was plenty hot enough. Steel cannot withstand fire at all, that's why we coat it with fireproofing and install sprinkler systems. WTC 1 and 2 did not have sprinkler systems because they pre-dated modern high-rise codes. The steel was fireproofed, but fireproofing does NOT protect steel forever. It is typically rated for 1 or 2 hours which means it will keep the steel from deforming for that length of fire exposure. That is typically long enough for egress to occur and fire crews to bring the fire under control and save the building, but sometimes it's not and the structure collapses (this is why current codes require sprinkler systems now, fireproofing is not enough protection in a high rise). What you have to understand is the typical office floor loading is 60 psf (pounds per square foot). This can handle typical office loading- furniture, files, people, etc. IT CANNOT HANDLE THE WEIGHT OF COLLAPSING FLOORS. Once the columns were fatigued and the structure collapsed, the floors below could simply not support the extreme weight of the upper floors collapsing down on them. As each floor in turn collapsed, its weight was added to the collapsing mass so that each floor in turn was exposed to that much more weight and collapsed that much easier. There is nothing strange or mysterious about this to the vast majority of architects and engineers, it's exactly what one would expect to happen.

When the first plane hit, can someone explain why the windows in the lobby were blown out. Still can't get ny head round that.

Originally posted by DemonicUFO
reply to post by pshea38

 

Eh look at the footage closely, why does the building explode exactly the same way the plane is shaped, thats what bothers me about the no plane thoery.

Because it is all CGI, Plane and Buildings alike.
Indeed most of the footage released is virtual reality computer generated imagery!
We were duped. Generated pre-prepared 'movie' footage was passed of as
'live' real time recordings. No small claim, with no small amount of damning evidence.

www.septemberclues.info
www.cluesforum.info

911 For Psychos
The Media Are The Enemy
both by ATS banned ex-member Yankee451.

9/11 Virtually Solved in the four above links!

Do Yourself A Favour!!

Originally posted by ParanoidAmerican
Not true the 707 is almost the same size as a 767 less that 10' difference in height, width, and length.

Depends which 707 and which 767 you're talking about. Mass and velocity are more interesting than size anyway. What is the difference in, say, empty weight for a 707 and a 767? Weight with fuel? What is the difference in kinetic energy for a 707 and a 767 at about 450 mph?

Making a lot of (hopefully reasonable) assumptions and a lot of rounding:

m(empty707) = 66406 kg
m(empty767) = 82380 kg
m(empty767) / m(empty707) = 1.24

An empty 767 delivers 24% more energy than an empty 707 at the same velocity.

m(max707) = 151320 kg
m(max767) = 179170 kg
m(max767) / m(max707) = 1.18

And at max takeoff weight, 18% more energy. Use the maximum or use the minimum, either way, the 767 provided a lot more energy than the 707 impact the building was designed for. A 20% bigger boom is not "almost the same." (And then there's the fire, but we already know how truthers feel about that.)