It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Roark get over it Twitchy is right.Put all your equations to the side for a minute and look at the obvious facts Twitchy brought to the table.And genius how come the first tower fell second if it was burning longer?.




posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by HowardRoark
While steel framed buildings generally do well in extreme fire conditions, they are not immune to structural damage. There are several instances of the partial collapse of steel structures due to fire.

Partial Collapse? What is that? We aren't talking about a typical steel framed building roark, we are talking about pretty much a man made wonder. The most over designed High Rise of it's time.


Yes it was a man made wonder, but over designed? I don’t think so. In fact, it is increasingly apparent that the structural design of the building was deficient in a number of areas.

If the buildings were overdesigned in anything it was in the efforts to maximize the net lease space per floor. Unfortunately, some of the design elements that were used to accomplish this have been implicated in contributing to the magnitude of the disaster.

What you should be asking yourself is this: “how many other buildings have similar design elements out there? What are the risks to those buildings?”


Originally posted by twitchy
Yes they do, they leave spaces in the construction of large steel high rises for the implementation of controlled demolitions,


Can you get confirmation of this? Why don’t you ask Skidmore, Owings & Merril if they do this.

Better yet, ask the insurance companies if they prewire buildings for demolition when they are built.



Originally posted by twitchy
You pretty much summed up a rebuttal of your own argument with, "While steel framed buildings generally do well in extreme fire conditions..." Extreme fire conditions...


So are you saying that the combustion of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel and the complete burn out of numerous floors is not extreme? Wow, what do you classify as extreme?



Pointing to the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991, Hufschmid
writes, "The Meridian Plaza fire was extreme, but it did not cause the
building to collapse. The fire in the South Tower seems insignificant by
comparison to both the Meridian Plaza fire and the fire in the North Tower.
How could the tiny fire in the South Tower cause the entire structure to
shatter into dust after 56 minutes while much more extreme fires did not
cause the Meridian Plaza building to even crack into two pieces?"



“tiny fire?” do you honestly think that the WTC fires were “tiny?”



(I should know better than to be drinking something while reading your posts. Now I have to clean my monitor
)

The fires in the One Meridian Plaza building (OMP) were not as extreme as the fires in the WTC.

For one thing, the OMP fire did not involve 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.

The floor area of the OMP was less then half of the WTC, thus for a similar office build out, you have less then half of the fuel load of typical office furnishings.

The smaller floor area also meant that much more of the heat from the fire was able to escape out the side of the OMP building, whereas in the WTC towers, the hot gasses were in contact with the building components for a much longer time.

The OMP plaza took 18 hours to go up 8 floors. Look at the video of the south tower just before the collapse. The fire was raging at least 8 to 10 floors over the airplane impact floor only an hour after the impact.

The WTC fires were at least an order of magnitude greater than the OMP fire, and they were certainly not “tiny.”



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drew Da General
Roark get over it Twitchy is right.Put all your equations to the side for a minute and look at the obvious facts Twitchy brought to the table.And genius how come the first tower fell second if it was burning longer?.


This is all very basic math and physics.

The "obvious facts" as you call them are anything but. Your misunderstanding of the basic laws of physics causes you to expect to see something that is not possible.

Why don't you try to explain why you think the top of the building should have tipped over?

As for the second tower falling first, the impact of the plane was different.

A slicing knife cut can be much more dangerous than a stab wound.

Besides, your theory that the buildings were demolished should also explain why "they" were so dumb as to drop the wrong building first. Since it is your theory, you should explain that aspect of it.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Ok i will explain why i thought the top of the building would fall off.All four sides of the building would not break at once.One side would go first causing it to lean or slide off.Then the weight would do the rest.I put it simply,do you understand what im talking about?.And a stab wound is worst than a slice.A slice is just the surface and a stab is internal,you would hit organs and so on.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drew Da General
And a stab wound is worst than a slice.A slice is just the surface and a stab is internal,you would hit organs and so on.


I would rather have a stab wound to my leg than a slice to the jugular!

Both sides are presenting very good arguments. I could, however, do without the attacks on each other. You all should be proud to believe in something and feel strongly enough about it to spend the countless hours you must have to provide such an argument.

As for me, I believe the official story. I just don't believe that an operation like this could be planned and pulled off without one of the many hundreds, if not thousands, of people required to execute this talking.

As for all of the information presented on this thread, I see both sides of the story. While lthe internet has provided us with a wealth of knowledge, it has also provided a means for "bogus" information to be presented as fact.

Once again, well done to all of you.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Ha dcgolf i knew someone was gonna say that about a jugular.Well it depends where you get the wound.I shoulda wrote in general.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drew Da General
Ok i will explain why i thought the top of the building would fall off.All four sides of the building would not break at once.One side would go first causing it to lean or slide off.Then the weight would do the rest.I put it simply,do you understand what im talking about?.And a stab wound is worst than a slice.A slice is just the surface and a stab is internal,you would hit organs and so on.


Yeah, I understand what you are talking about. Unfortunately your scenario is flawed in a number of ways. the biggest is that you are assuming that as the first side collapses and lands on the floor below, that that floor will support it.

To begin with, the airplane impact and subsequent fire damaged those floor slabs and almost completely wiped them out.

Second, you have to realize that the on each floor the structure is only designed to carry the static load of the top floors and the live load of the occupants.

Just dropping the top of the building ten feet created considerable momentum, enough to overcome any remaining structural strength. At this time gravity did take over, and everything went straight down.

Your scenario imagines either a pivot point around which the mass would rotate or a significant sideways force that would push the mass to the side. In either case, the lower portion of the structure was just not that strong.


One other thing to consider, not only was the second impact lower down, where the loads on the columns were greater, but it also was off center. There are numerous reports of that the building twisted from the impact. Twisting is not something that designers plan for.

You can also see and interesting thing in the Columbia seismic report. The seismic energy released from the building due to the second impact was lower than that released from the first impact. If the overall energy of the impacts were roughly the same, then where did that difference in energy go? While some of the energy was dispersed when pieces of the second plane exited the side of the south tower, a lot of the energy was probably absorbed by the building. In other words, there was a lot more damage to the structure and floors of the building.


[edit on 5-10-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy


Originally posted by HowardRoark
The fire did not melt the steel. The only ones claiming that there was melted steel are the supporters of the bomb/thermite theory. The heat from the fire caused the structural steel to weaken and lose strength.

Then what did melt the steel? Sulfides? Heat Corrosion?


In the case of WTC 7, there is evidence that hot corrosion due to sulfides did in fact cause damage to the steel.

Again, you have one unsubstantiated report of molten “steel.”

1) You have no confirmation that it was in fact steel.
2) There was a considerable amount of aluminum on the impact floors of the building, directly exposed to theheat of the fires. at least 100,000 lbs, quite probably more (an empty 767 weighs 175,000 lbs).
3) As it has been stated time and time again, there is a difference between heat and temperature.




oilfield blowout
The pressure-feed fire of a blowout will totally destroy the surrounding steel structure in minutes. Derricks have fallen-in less than 30 minutes after blowout ignition. The core temperature of a low-GOR 28 deg. F API crude oil blowout in Kuwait was measured at 1,677 deg. C (3,051 deg. F). And a radiant heat temperature of 510 deg. C (950 deg. F) was measured at ground level, 15 m (49 ft) from the base of this large vertical fire, which was estimated at 30,000 bopd. Oil well firefighters commonly see surrounding sand and stones melted and fused on large fires. Steel loses most of its strength at 500 deg. C (932 deg. F) and melts at 1,500 deg. C (2,732 deg. F).

By your logic, the steel should not melt because oil doesn’t burn that hot. Do you remember the oil fires in Kuwait? That was a lot of black smoke.
How about an oil refinery fire?

ST. PAUL PARK, Minn. (AP) -- Lightning struck a tank at the Marathon Ashland refinery here Sunday, igniting a fire hot enough to melt the steel tank.

cms.firehouse.com...

or


The plant has a total of 45 storage tanks in three tank farm areas (for naphtha fuel, crude Tupras managers reported two incidences of hydrocarbon spillage into the Bay of Izmit. the days following the earthquake, there was a thick layer of oil at the southern mergency Response at Tupras. Immediately after the earthquake, operators shut down oil, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)). The most affected was the naphtha tank farm area where an enormous fire melted six steel storage tanks and consumed more than 18,000 m3 of naphtha.

www.iiasa.ac.at...

Oh, and lets not forget about the chemical oxygen generators for the passengers and the gaseous oxygen for the crew that was part of the Boeing 767.




[edit on 5-10-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
For those of you that claim that the WTC towers fell perfectly into their foundations, please explain how this building across the street was damaged.




posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Bear with me guys, I will respond to roarks posts this evening, but in the mean time here are a few I had left hanging...


Originally posted by LL1
google search: WTC "knowledge & spells" OMG!!!
I can see a professors' face now as he/she reads through your
thesis or dissertation....
The professor then reads through your references....
hmmm...
Grade: "F"
Excellent reference source "WTC Knowledge & spells".
I'm certain there you can find all knowledge and spells of WHY
the towers fell....
The towers were not designed for an attach such as what happened on 9/11, they were not even as strong as the Empire State Building which was constructed of brick masonry/concrete walls.
If you look at the older buildings in NYC they are constructed of brick, the
newer building are mostly glass, with sheetrock interior.

Note my lack of response to your post, except to say the reaons I had posted links to google search threads was so that maybe you in particular and others could do some real research and argue with some actual data rather than emotional rhetoric. And yes the towers were designed for just such an event, read the thread, argue with credibility.

Originally posted by Facefirst
So, in other words....... Anything that does not agree with your opinion is part of the conspiracy?

jeez

No, in other words anyone who sits on their butts and swallows the official story has not done their homework. To you I pose this hypothetical question.
Let's say that Fox news broke a huge story that implicated the US government in a WTC demolition, and instead of seeing the facts and evidence I and others have represented here, you see it on the news. What would you do then? Answer honestly. I propose that you would do absoultely nothing, maybe email your representative or senator expressing your concerns, then sit on your butt and say "wow that's awful".
Considering the media's corporate consolidation and connections to political entitites, can you honestly expect them to incriminate the system? Bite the hand that feeds them? The mass media is a machine, a propoganda machine and has been since Marconi stole Tesla's broadcasting technology. If the media says they jumped, you and others like you awe at how high they jumped and ignore the trampolines and stuntmen just out of the frame. Did you know about the court case in Florida recently (I can't recall the names, but I will look if it interests you) stated that the news media is not obligated to be truthful or factual? Most of knew this already. Don't be an armchair warhawk, to quote a silly monkey in a disney movie, "Look beyond what you see." Think about how easy it is to manipulate public opinion, an insinuation is as good as a lie, adn picture is worth a thousand words. Consider the footage that the media showed of the arabs celebrating the collapse of the WTC structure, that footage led to public outrage and anger, but it turns out that the footage was 12 year old stock footage from the first gulf war. Did they address this or apologise for the incident, no they refused to comment on it. Consider the election recount riots in Florida, made you think that the floridians were fiercely protesting the recount, however when you examine the footage, most of the participants it turns out were active GOP members the republicans literally flew into FL to stage a riot. All the participants int he riots that were shown on television were later identified as GOP activists. When questioned about this, the media declines to comment. You need to realize what propaganda is to appreciate it's effect, and you need to realize that the media is not a public information clearinghouse, it is a tool. What would you do if the story broke that the US Government is involved in the WTC disaster? Honestly, if history is any indication, probably not a damn thing. Between the propaganda and the lack of response form the american people, they have little to fear especially from the delusional masses that take what they are fed as truth.
Did you take to the streets when you found out about Iran Contra? Did you Protest the exposed lies of the Johnson Administration about Vietnam? Did you get mad when you found out the CIA was involved in the Vietnamese Opium trade? Did you get mad when you found out that the Hinkley Family was Intimate with the Bush Family when Reagan was shot? Watergate? Kennedy? Northwoods? Does it bother that UNOCAL is the governing body in Afghanistan? What about the Bush family connections to Harriman and the Nazis? Or what about the footage of Lee harvey Oswald that turned up int he 80's showing him alive and well in Siberia? How about the fake yellow cake uranium documents? Nobody even bothered to ask "Who faked them" What does it take to p*ss you off? How far can they go before dellusion and reality clash in your mind? Does it bother you to know that the steel was hauled out of the rubble of the WTC before an investigation could take place? That alone is criminal obstruction of justice. How much evidence do you require to realize that in the case of the WTC disaster, the official story doesn't float.

Originally posted by Djarums
I think we've had a total of 30 or so threads on this exact topic. The fact is nothing has changed. ...
My point is, nothing is being accomplished. Everyone seems to claim that they have THE smoking gun but no one ever produces anything that hasn't been hashed, rehashed and rerehashed on this site and others for the past 3 years.
What is the goal here? Summer rerun season is over isn't it?

If you aren't interested in the subject, why waste your time, our time, and their bandwidth posting? It's not very ergonomically wise to type rebuttals to a subject you aren't interested in... For that matter, why come to ATS? And yes there is something new here, me. And if it's ok with you, I'd like to discuss "Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center "Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact" as the title of this thread suggests. Seriously, Anything relevant to contribute to the discussion? At least state your position, geez. I don't like golf, so more than likely you won't see me at the course griping about golf being redundant or discussing how dirty the balls are.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Yes it was a man made wonder, but over designed? I don’t think so. In fact, it is increasingly apparent that the structural design of the building was deficient in a number of areas.
If the buildings were overdesigned in anything it was in the efforts to maximize the net lease space per floor. Unfortunately, some of the design elements that were used to accomplish this have been implicated in contributing to the magnitude of the disaster. What you should be asking yourself is this: “how many other buildings have similar design elements out there? What are the risks to those buildings?”

So now your arguement shifts from the impact of the planes and the super hot steel melting infernos to faulting the designs of the WTC? What you whould be asking is why all of the blue prints have not been handed over or made public.


Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments.
The investigation, organized immediately after Sept. 11 by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the field's leading professional organization, has been financed and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A mismatch between the federal agency and senior engineers accustomed to bypassing protocol in favor of quick answers has been identified as a clear point of friction.
''This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied,'' said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press.
''FEMA is controlling everything,'' the team member said. ''It sounds funny, but just give us the money and let us do it, and get the politics out of it.''...
For example, three months after the disaster, Ronald Hamburger, an expert in structural analysis at A.B.S. Consulting in Oakland, Calif., and a director of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, said he had not even been given access to basic blueprints describing where the steel and other structural elements had been when the World Trade Center was whole.
''I'd like to be able to have a set of the drawings for all of the affected buildings,'' Mr. Hamburger said. ''I don't have that.''

It really would be nice to believe they have our safety and best interest in minds, but in order to prevent future collapses like this, it would of course require an investigation, but one can see the difficulty of conducting an investigation when you run into crap like this...


The U.S. Dept of Justice has ordered secrecy measures to keep the contents of a 'lost tape' of firefighters' voices at the World Trade Center from being made public.



Jan 24, 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle claims that on this day Cheney calls him and urges that no 9/11 inquiry be made. He is repeatedly pressured thereafter.



...the government threatened fire fighters who had heard other explosions to keep silent...



Ground Zero was the site of the total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 -- the only three cases of total collapses of skyscrapers in history, and the only collapses steel-framed highrise buildings being blamed mostly or exclusively on fires. Based on the official explanations, these collapses represented the most mysterious engineering failures in history, with profound implications for the safety of highrise buildings. Consequently they warranted a serious investigation of unprecedented scale. No such investigation occurred. Instead, FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) took control of Ground Zero in Manhattan in the immediate aftermath of the attack and assured the no real investigation could be conducted.
FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses. It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost immediately. The structural steel would be removed and loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India and China. Meanwhile, FEMA pretended to investigate the collapses by assembling a group of volunteer investigators, the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). This so-called investigation was a complete farce:
No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.
The BPAT volunteers were barred from Ground Zero.
They did not see a single piece of steel until almost a month after the disaster.
They had to guess the origin of the few pieces of steel they saw.
They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study (out of millions of pieces).
Their report, which called for "further investigation and analysis" was published after Ground Zero had been scrubbed.
In May of 2002 FEMA's hand-picked team of volunteers released their report that, although self-described as preliminary and incomplete, would be taken by Government officials as the last word on the causes of the building collapses. Their "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations" is full of vague and evasive descriptions of the buildings, deceptive illustrations, and misleading scenarios. Although the report called for more study, by the time it was issued the crime scene had been scrubbed, and the structural steel, which was so essential to any investigation, was long gone.

Also consider the independent investigations conducted by the applicable insurance companies involved in the disaster, hey what do you know, the findings of those investigations have been sealed and kept from the public. Smell anything yet?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by twitchy
Yes they do, they leave spaces in the construction of large steel high rises for the implementation of controlled demolitions,

Can you get confirmation of this? Why don’t you ask Skidmore, Owings & Merril if they do this.
Better yet, ask the insurance companies if they prewire buildings for demolition when they are built.

I didn't say they were pre-wired, they leave access for the implementation of demolition devices. This is common knowlege if you do your homework. Any major high rise is built with future demolition in mind, no building is designed to stand forever. Here you demonstarate a keen lack of knowlege of Zoning and city planning, urban bulding codes. CDI already had the Connections and the access. Take a look at the Squibs in the pictures on CDI's site, look familiar? Note the references to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, displayed along with their other accomplishments.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So are you saying that the combustion of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel and the complete burn out of numerous floors is not extreme? Wow, what do you classify as extreme?

How long are you going to continue to claim that jet fuel melts steel?


The official government version of how the World Trade Center collapsed has been well-established. Due to excessive heat created by airliners crashing into each tower, the building’s support beams melted, subsequently causing each structure to pancake to the ground.
But is this the way it really happened? The laws of physics seem to contradict this account. How so? Well, to begin, construction-grade steel (and I think we can all agree that the WTC engineers would have used only the highest grade steel possible) melts at 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s a proven fact, as can be seen from the website: www.chemicalelements.com... . Meanwhile, according to a BBC report on September 13, 2001 entitled How the World Trade Center Fell, the WTC steel cores reached a temperature of 1472 degrees Fahrenheit, which, coincidentally, is the maximum temperature of jet fuel, but nowhere near the 2795 degrees needed to melt steel.
Now, of course, we need to look for other sources of information, but instead of quoting “conspiracy theorists” (which the establishment media always seems to sneer at), we’ll stick with the government’s own sources. FEMA itself said that temperatures inside the WTC towers reached 1700-2000 degrees Fahrenheit – somewhat higher than the BBC’s estimates, but still not nearly enough to melt steel.
As you can see, we’re beginning to have a problem trying to coincide how jet fuel can melt construction-grade steel. So, let’s ponder this question: what do welders or factory workers use to melt steel? Answer: acetylene torches, electric arcs, or bottled oxygen. And do they ever use jet fuel as their energy source? Never, because jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough. It has an ignition temperature of 410 degrees Fahrenheit, and if they tried to cut or melt steel with it, they’d sit there all day because it never reaches a high enough temperature. What jet fuel (or a similar derivative) is used for is lamp oil, charcoal starter fluid, or to run lawnmowers – not to cut or melt steel.
Now, if the laws of physics aren’t enough to convince you that something is awry, consider these words from author Eric Hufschmid in Time for Painful Questions: “Fire has never caused a steel building to collapse.” Ever! In the history of the world, fire has never caused a steel building to collapse, yet on the morning of 9-11, TWO of them did! Even Philadelphia’s raging 1991 Meridian Plaza fire (often called the most significant fire of the 20th century) which blazed on eight floors for nineteen straight hours and was countless times more extreme than that which affected the WTC towers, still didn’t cause that building to collapse. But we’re expected to believe that these two relatively smaller fires on 9-11 reduced the world’s two tallest structures to dust.
Further, in the mid-1990s, the British Steel and Building Research Establishment did an experiment on the affects of fire on steel buildings. During these tests they raised the temperatures well above those produced by jet fuels – up to 1700 degrees Fahrenheit – yet not one of these buildings collapsed in any of their six experiments.
With this information in mind, let’s return to the morning of September 11th. As we all remember, when the second jet crashed into the South Tower, most of its fuel splashed outside of the building upon impact because it struck the corner. Now, ponder this point – this tower was hit after the first tower, most of the fuel splashed outside the building, and the fire was significantly smaller. Yet, the government wants us to believe that the construction-grade steel beams collapsed first. How? The North Tower was hit first, and its fire burned more rapidly. Establishment media “experts” realized the inherent problems with this scenario, so they explained that the support beams got “soft” from the fire; then collapsed. If we accept this thesis, then logically the North Tower should have fallen first; yet it came down twenty minutes after the South Tower despite having a much larger fire.
But we need to return to the laws of physics once again, for after each airliner crashed into the WTC towers, the great explosions consumed most of the jet fuel within minutes. In a report entitled Jet Fuel: How Hot Did It Heat the World Trade Center that was posted on Hawaii Indymedia, we find this scientific observation: “The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by the fire in less than five minutes.”
Of course, other items were also burning, including the cabinets, carpets, walls, paper, and furniture inside the WTC towers. But even then, if all of these items burned with perfect efficiency, the temperature could still not reach that needed to melt steel. Try it sometime. Plus, after the initial blaze, we could see on TV that by 9:03 am – only eighteen minutes after the first tower was struck – most of the fire was reduced to black smoke, thus meaning that it was starved for oxygen and was by now just a smoldering, low-temperature fire – not a continual rip-roaring blaze. What this obviously implies is that liquid fuel doesn’t burn hot for long, and it evaporates or boils as it burns.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
The fires in the One Meridian Plaza building (OMP) were not as extreme as the fires in the WTC.

Yes they were. They "raged for 18 hours". Not to mention it is still reported as "largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history" and "the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things..." Jet fuel evaporates very quickly, while there is no doubt it was responsible for the start of the fires, you are failing to address the fact that the NYFD was already calling the 'inferno' containable.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
This is all very basic math and physics.
The "obvious facts" as you call them are anything but. Your misunderstanding of the basic laws of physics causes you to expect to see something that is not possible.
Why don't you try to explain why you think the top of the building should have tipped over?
As for the second tower falling first, the impact of the plane was different.
A slicing knife cut can be much more dangerous than a stab wound.
Besides, your theory that the buildings were demolished should also explain why "they" were so dumb as to drop the wrong building first. Since it is your theory, you should explain that aspect of it.

Something that is not possible? You mean like jet fuel melting steel? Symetric collapse of a steel framed high rise due to impact and or fire? Your basic laws of physics and those of the known universe are very different if you are trying to explain a footprint symetric collapse given the extensive damage to one side of a building and not the other. Slice or stab wound? Come on now. How can you sit there and actually try to argue that extensive damage to one area is going to cause a perfect footprint collapse of the entrie structure at nearly the rate of freefall? Get Real, you drop a rock through air, it achieves a certain speed, if you drop the same rock through a series of steel supports designed to hold that rock up, it is going to slow down, or slide to the point of least resistance. This is basic stuff here and you are actually debating it. The apple didn't fall through Issac Newton at near terminal velocity, it bounced off his freaking head. Even if you kicked Newtons kness out from under him and he fell, the apple still slows down when it hit his head. You are obviously not an ignorant human, why debate a basic principle? You can't alter the laws of physics, you can't debunk the laws of thermodynamics because FEMA says so. Dude, you can see the squibs going off in footage from various sources. Do an image search on google for 'squibs' or 'demolitions' then watch the footage of the collapses, are you blind?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Yeah, I understand what you are talking about. Unfortunately your scenario is flawed in a number of ways. the biggest is that you are assuming that as the first side collapses and lands on the floor below, that that floor will support it.
To begin with, the airplane impact and subsequent fire damaged those floor slabs and almost completely wiped them out.
Second, you have to realize that the on each floor the structure is only designed to carry the static load of the top floors and the live load of the occupants.
Just dropping the top of the building ten feet created considerable momentum, enough to overcome any remaining structural strength. At this time gravity did take over, and everything went straight down.
Your scenario imagines either a pivot point around which the mass would rotate or a significant sideways force that would push the mass to the side. In either case, the lower portion of the structure was just not that strong.
One other thing to consider, not only was the second impact lower down, where the loads on the columns were greater, but it also was off center.

Yeah here we are back to the Pancake Theory... When the dust settles, where is your stack of pancakes that should remain if this theory holds water? And Where did you manage to come up with a copy of the WTC blueprints to prove this given that litigation and investigation could not? You get this info from FEMA? Or are you basing your assumptions on your twisted up laws of physics again? LOL


Originally posted by HowardRoark
There are numerous reports of that the building twisted from the impact. Twisting is not something that designers plan for.

WTC Twisted from the impact of a aircraft? You need to seriously rethink this, they designed it spefically to withstand the impact of a 707. Were you privy to original design contigencies? Do I need to quote that again or did you forget it?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You can also see and interesting thing in the Columbia seismic report. The seismic energy released from the building due to the second impact was lower than that released from the first impact. If the overall energy of the impacts were roughly the same, then where did that difference in energy go? While some of the energy was dispersed when pieces of the second plane exited the side of the south tower, a lot of the energy was probably absorbed by the building. In other words, there was a lot more damage to the structure and floors of the building.

Dude, if I threw an egg at a cinder block, most of the kinetic energy you would be able to measure in terms of residual resonance, is going to be abosrbed by the egg. This would be quite evident by the busted up yellow yolk and smashed eggshell. Yeah the cinderblock is going to absorb some of the energy, but here we come to a basic concept in physics you fail to understand. If the plane's density was greater than WTC this might be worthy of reading.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
In the case of WTC 7, there is evidence that hot corrosion due to sulfides did in fact cause damage to the steel.

Yeah and there is damage to my cast iron skillet from bacon frying in it. Also, I blow glass, I have seen the pock marks caused by 3000 degree silicates in steel pretty regulary, pock marks, not melt down.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Again, you have one unsubstantiated report of molten “steel.”
1) You have no confirmation that it was in fact steel.
2) There was a considerable amount of aluminum on the impact floors of the building, directly exposed to theheat of the fires. at least 100,000 lbs, quite probably more (an empty 767 weighs 175,000 lbs).
3) As it has been stated time and time again, there is a difference between heat and temperature.

Good Grief Man, CDI confirmed this. As much as you would like to try to debunk it, as I have said before, get over it. The pools of molten steel are a matter of public record. "The highly reflective aluminum sheathing of the Twin Towers" held up to the heat, they were located where the heat of your steel melting inferno should have been escaping. They survived, while the interior steel support columns were melted. Demolition. Now, after trying to argue that there were pools of molten steel in the basements of the ruins despite CDI's public statement and other clean up crews, including FEMA workers, that there was, you go on with this...

Originally posted by HowardRoark

oilfield blowout
The pressure-feed fire of a blowout will totally destroy the surrounding steel structure in minutes. Derricks have fallen-in less than 30 minutes after blowout ignition. The core temperature of a low-GOR 28 deg. F API crude oil blowout in Kuwait was measured at 1,677 deg. C (3,051 deg. F). And a radiant heat temperature of 510 deg. C (950 deg. F) was measured at ground level, 15 m (49 ft) from the base of this large vertical fire, which was estimated at 30,000 bopd. Oil well firefighters commonly see surrounding sand and stones melted and fused on large fires. Steel loses most of its strength at 500 deg. C (932 deg. F) and melts at 1,500 deg. C (2,732 deg. F).

By your logic, the steel should not melt because oil doesn’t burn that hot. Do you remember the oil fires in Kuwait? That was a lot of black smoke.
How about an oil refinery fire?

ST. PAUL PARK, Minn. (AP) -- Lightning struck a tank at the Marathon Ashland refinery here Sunday, igniting a fire hot enough to melt the steel tank.

cms.firehouse.com...
or

The plant has a total of 45 storage tanks in three tank farm areas (for naphtha fuel, crude Tupras managers reported two incidences of hydrocarbon spillage into the Bay of Izmit. the days following the earthquake, there was a thick layer of oil at the southern mergency Response at Tupras. Immediately after the earthquake, operators shut down oil, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)). The most affected was the naphtha tank farm area where an enormous fire melted six steel storage tanks and consumed more than 18,000 m3 of naphtha.

www.iiasa.ac.at...

Naptha, lightning, and pressure feed huh? Naptha is a different animal. Lightning achieves
15,000-60,000°F and several hundred million volts. Pressure feed is pressurized focused and constant application of heat. Your point in this posting this completely irrelevant information is exactly what? That steel melts? Yes, nobody is arguing that steel doesn't melt, what you fail to understand is that steel doesn't melt in a building fire. Kerosene or no kerosene, millions of gallons or thousands of gallons, it just doens't burn hot enough to collapse steel structures, let alone melt them. You can't reasonably argue that there were no pools of molten steel, and you can't reasonably argue that what amounts to a serious office fire is going to melt high carbon structural steel. Suitcase Nukes, Thermite, yes, kerosene and carpet, no. Savy?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Oh, and lets not forget about the chemical oxygen generators for the passengers and the gaseous oxygen for the crew that was part of the Boeing 767.

Oh, so the O2 in the planes contributed to your steel melting inferno. I'm not going to waste my time replying to that rubbish, except to say, LOL

Originally posted by HowardRoark
For those of you that claim that the WTC towers fell perfectly into their foundations, please explain how this building across the street was damaged.

LOL Read the thread, notice the reports of explosions? Ever heard the term lateral ejection? Now accept the fact that the only other building destroyed besides the WTC complex was the ST. NICHOLAS CHURCH, and given the proximity of the WTC complex to all those buildings, how can you say this was a collapse? A controlled demolition is the one and only explination for the near perfect footprint collapse of the WTC. Symetric collapse, visible squibs, firefighters reporting explosions, criminal destruction of evidence, obstruction of investigations from not only FEMA but the white house... Why did they pull the bomb sniffing dogs out roark? Address something you can argue reasonably, as the laws of physics don't support your arguements, the evidence doesn't support your arguements, and your conjectures and assumptions don't impress me as reasonable. Neither does the official BS story Uncle Sam is trying to hand us. They pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out? Wake up people.
Try this time line out and see if you can debunk it...
www.wanttoknow.info...
and then if you get bored...
911research.wtc7.net...
killtown.911review.org...
www.questionsquestions.net...
physics911.org...
www.communitycurrency.org...
fraktali.849pm.com...
falloutshelternews.com...
www.attackonamerica.net...
www.wanttoknow.info... TIMELINE

And if you still think you get the whole story on FOX, consider this...
www.apfn.org...
Bush wouldn't Lie to us would he? Norad wouldn't Lie would they?





[edit on 6-10-2004 by twitchy]



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Yes it was a man made wonder, but over designed? I don’t think so. In fact, it is increasingly apparent that the structural design of the building was deficient in a number of areas.
If the buildings were overdesigned in anything it was in the efforts to maximize the net lease space per floor. Unfortunately, some of the design elements that were used to accomplish this have been implicated in contributing to the magnitude of the disaster. What you should be asking yourself is this: “how many other buildings have similar design elements out there? What are the risks to those buildings?”

So now your arguement shifts from the impact of the planes and the super hot steel melting infernos to faulting the designs of the WTC? What you whould be asking is why all of the blue prints have not been handed over or made public.



My argument has not "shifted" at all. The impact of the planes caused unimaginable structural damage. The subsequent, jet fuel fed, fires caused the impaired structure to fail.

There were, however a several design elements that contributed to the disaster. Not the least of which was the building's height, the fact that the exit stairs were all next to each other in the core area, the use of drywall instead of masonry for core area fire protection, the use of long span trusses to support the floor loads. If any of these things had been different, it is possible, ever so slightly possible, that the ultimate outcome might have been different. Who knows.

As for the blueprints, where do you think that they kept them? Thats right, in the buildings themselves. These buildings were designed pre-CAD, and it is unlikely that the design firm kept any hard copies of the plans. (they designed thousands of buildings)



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy


Originally posted by HowardRoark

oilfield blowout
The pressure-feed fire of a blowout will totally destroy the surrounding steel structure in minutes. Derricks have fallen-in less than 30 minutes after blowout ignition. The core temperature of a low-GOR 28 deg. F API crude oil blowout in Kuwait was measured at 1,677 deg. C (3,051 deg. F). And a radiant heat temperature of 510 deg. C (950 deg. F) was measured at ground level, 15 m (49 ft) from the base of this large vertical fire, which was estimated at 30,000 bopd. Oil well firefighters commonly see surrounding sand and stones melted and fused on large fires. Steel loses most of its strength at 500 deg. C (932 deg. F) and melts at 1,500 deg. C (2,732 deg. F).

By your logic, the steel should not melt because oil doesn’t burn that hot. Do you remember the oil fires in Kuwait? That was a lot of black smoke.
How about an oil refinery fire?

ST. PAUL PARK, Minn. (AP) -- Lightning struck a tank at the Marathon Ashland refinery here Sunday, igniting a fire hot enough to melt the steel tank.

cms.firehouse.com...
or

The plant has a total of 45 storage tanks in three tank farm areas (for naphtha fuel, crude Tupras managers reported two incidences of hydrocarbon spillage into the Bay of Izmit. the days following the earthquake, there was a thick layer of oil at the southern mergency Response at Tupras. Immediately after the earthquake, operators shut down oil, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)). The most affected was the naphtha tank farm area where an enormous fire melted six steel storage tanks and consumed more than 18,000 m3 of naphtha.

www.iiasa.ac.at...

Naptha, lightning, and pressure feed huh? Naptha is a different animal. Lightning achieves
15,000-60,000°F and several hundred million volts. Pressure feed is pressurized focused and constant application of heat. Your point in this posting this completely irrelevant information is exactly what? That steel melts? Yes, nobody is arguing that steel doesn't melt, what you fail to understand is that steel doesn't melt in a building fire. Kerosene or no kerosene, millions of gallons or thousands of gallons, it just doens't burn hot enough to collapse steel structures, let alone melt them. You can't reasonably argue that there were no pools of molten steel, and you can't reasonably argue that what amounts to a serious office fire is going to melt high carbon structural steel. Suitcase Nukes, Thermite, yes, kerosene and carpet, no. Savy?



  1. "Naptha is a different animal " - Sorry, but jet fuel is naphtha.

  2. Lightning started the St. paul fire, the heat from the burning fuel did the rest, unless you are suggesting that a lightning stike melted the tank?

  3. It doesn't matter if it is pressurized feed or not. Based on your logic, because the the fires produced a lot of thick black smoke, they were oxygen poor, and thus they should not have been able to get that hot.



  4. An analysis of the collaspe

  5. The adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene = 1727C, well above the melting point of steel.

  6. The Boeing 767 weighs 175,000 pounds empty. The majority of that mass was aluminum. What happened to that metal? We know that molten aluminum was seen flowing out of the impact floors shortly before the collapse. How much of it flowed into the elevator shafts?






    [edit on 6-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

    [edit on 6-10-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy


Originally posted by HowardRoark
There are numerous reports of that the building twisted from the impact. Twisting is not something that designers plan for.

WTC Twisted from the impact of a aircraft? You need to seriously rethink this, they designed it spefically to withstand the impact of a 707. Were you privy to original design contigencies? Do I need to quote that again or did you forget it?


Yes, twisted.


www.pbs.org...
I continued on to the west side near my office. I was fairly near the windows talking with two or three people, including especially Bobby Coll. I was looking him in the eye having a conversation with him when at apparently 9:03 -- I didn't check my watch -- the second plane hit the south side of our building at approximately the 78th, 79th, and 80th floors. Our room fell apart at that moment, a complete destruction without an explosion -- very strange things. The lights went out, but we were near the window so there was daylight. Again, there was this sort of thump, this explosion without fire and flame, a very strange sensation.

There was a twist, if you like, to the building when it got hit, and therefore the plane's hitting explained some things to me later, like why the ceiling fell apart. The ceiling tiles and some of the brackets and so on fell; some air conditioning ducts, speakers, cables, and things like that that were in the ceiling fell. I seem to have a sense that some of the floor tiles even buckled a bit or were moved. Some of the walls, I recall vaguely, were actually torn in a jagged direction rather then up and down. Again perhaps explained by the torque, some of the door frames popped out of the wall and partially fell or fully fell.

For seven to ten seconds there was this enormous sway in the building. It was one way, and I just felt in my heart, Oh my gosh, we are going over. That's what it felt like. Now, on windy days prior to that there was a little bit of a sway to the building. You got used to it; you didn't notice it. The window blinds would go clack clack as they swung. As I said, for a good seven to ten seconds I thought it was over -- horrible feeling -- but then the building righted itself. It didn't sway back and forth; it just went one way, it seemed, and then back, and we were stable again.


In addition, after the impact, well before the collapse, the south tower had a noticeable tilt.


www.mishalov.com...
SGT. WILLIAM B. ROSS

Outside Tower 2: "We now were aware that the second plane had struck the south tower and we could see the smoke and fire from that crash. The upper portion of the south tower appeared to have a slight tilt to my left."


Finally, the tops of the towers both rotated and tilted when they fell


wtc.nist.gov...
The initiation of global collapse for both towers was first observed by the tilting of the sections above the impact regions of both WTC towers. The top section of WTC 1 rotated to the south (observed via antenna tilting in a video recording) and the top of WTC 2 rotated to the east and south and twisted in a counterclockwise motion. The primary direction of tilt of each tower was around the weaker axis of the core (north-south for WTC 1 and east-west for WTC 2). The rigid body rotation associated with the tilting and the propagation of column instability are synchronous processes that initiated global collapse. The rigid body rotation may have caused forces such as shear and torsion to spread the column instability laterally



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by HowardRoark
In the case of WTC 7, there is evidence that hot corrosion due to sulfides did in fact cause damage to the steel.

Yeah and there is damage to my cast iron skillet from bacon frying in it. Also, I blow glass, I have seen the pock marks caused by 3000 degree silicates in steel pretty regulary, pock marks, not melt down.



An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000şC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.





posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Some people speak of controlled demolition as the cause for the collapse of the WTC North and South tower. I have heard from many controlled demolitionists with 20 years in the field that they were astonished at how the buildings came down so neatly. Some have even gone as far to say that not even a controlled demolition could be that neat(clean). So if a controlled demolition could not produce such a clean collapse we know pan caking trussels are out unless by some freak of nature where the top structure got trapped in a vaccum like vortex and sucked itself down. but for 2 buildings? Now WTC7 coming down that clean with demolition charges is plausible but 110 stories?

In my estimation and good guess what we witnessed on 9-11-01 was a new technology of sorts. Excited particles perhaps? Remember all the hype on those Super Colliders and how excited everyone was on the research of it etc? It just kinda lost steam and dropped off the map didnt it? I wonder why.

Can you say Classified at the Highest possible level?

Anyone remember that movie with Segal where he fights this mad scientist that takes over a particle beam satelite called Grazer1? Remember the villain mentioned something about a earthquake at 30,000 feet when he took out a plane which he was paid a large sum of money for the task?

What if thats what happened to the towers, An earthquake at 90 stories. Now that I think about it those buildings fell very much like the Empire State building did in the movie "Independence Day" except without all the colorful light from a beam striking it.


Science Fiction fantasy?

Says who



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by HowardRoark
For those of you that claim that the WTC towers fell perfectly into their foundations, please explain how this building across the street was damaged.

LOL Read the thread, notice the reports of explosions? Ever heard the term lateral ejection?


From the photograph that is a pretty big chunk of the WTC column tree sticking out of the side of the bankers trust building. Are you claiming that this multi-ton chunk of steel was blown off of the WTC building by explosives? That must have been one hell of a boom. Too ban none of the hundreds of media cameras running that day picked up the sound of that boom.

No, the pieces flew because of the gravitational forces involved in the collapse. That is all. your attempt to create this so called proof that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition is ricketier than the towers themselves after the impacts.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by project_pisces
Some people speak of controlled demolition as the cause for the collapse of the WTC North and South tower. I have heard from many controlled demolitionists with 20 years in the field that they were astonished at how the buildings came down so neatly. Some have even gone as far to say that not even a controlled demolition could be that neat(clean).


How do you happen to know so many controlled demolitionists?



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I was pretty skeptical about bombs in WTC 1 and 2. I always thought 7 WTC was a controlled demolition. After watching the footage on this website:

www.911uncovered.com...

It really seems as if WTC 1 and 2 had controlled demolition. I think it'd be hard for anyone to watch all the footage and eye witness testimony from people there that day and say that there was no demo going on.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Iv'e posted this before, dosen't anyone here have an opinion on what these Firefighter have said?


New York Firefighters Telling of 911 Controlled Demolition

Click to play

New York Firefighters Telling of 911 Controlled Demolition Windows media 0:29 sec.

or Right click and save it who knows how long this will stay on line.

[edit on 25/10/2004 by Sauron]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join