 | |
|  |
Longsword
Peon
April 9th, 2006 @ 1:51PM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
Vancouver, BC
Posts: 43
| That article was a travesty of physics. |
KMac
Kali Compton
April 9th, 2006 @ 2:17PM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Posts: 552
| The entire premise of that article is that the tower fell in 9.2 seconds, therefore it was helped along by extra explosives or something (they of course don't have any actual explanation, just try to cast doubt on what really happened.
But if you look at the video, you can see there appears to be plenty of the building still up 10 seconds after the collapse started. I say appears to be because there is so much dust already surrounding the area, it is completely impossible to judge exactly how long it took for the building to collapse. |
Crazieman
Special Forces
April 9th, 2006 @ 3:43PM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 466
| I can't believe this BS is even being posted. |
Zamtor
Peon
April 9th, 2006 @ 4:04PM
Registered:
2003-04-04
Location:
Ohio
Posts: 126
| This article is easy to refute. Claiming the towers wouldn`t fall that fast unless the building as demolished is flawed even under their own reasoning. If what they say about physics encompasses everything relevant to the collapse, then the building would have taken longer than the 9.2 seconds to collapse even if it had been blown up with demo charges. |
Laertes
Peon
April 9th, 2006 @ 5:34PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Austin
Posts: 45
| The collapse of the WTC towers has never intuitively made sense to me. I have an engineering background and was studying engineering at Stevens Tech in Hoboken on 9/11 -- I watched both towers collapse and had friends who worked in boths towers. So feel free to keep your heads in the sand, but I think skepticism is a good thing for our country and, hell, I love debunking crazy conspiracy theories as much as the next guy.
A few points:
1. The melting point of the steel that was used to construct WTC1, 2, and 7 is about 1000 degrees HIGHER than the burning temperature of Jet Fuel. Even if you poured jet fuel onto the fire for hours and hours and hours, it would not get hot enough to melt the steel. As it was, a large portion of the jet fuel burned up in giant fireballs when the planes hit the towers. Both towers collapsed after only about an hour of burning. They were the first two modern high rise steel buildings to collapse because of fire. Other large buildings built around the same time have endured fires that have gone on for days but still not collapsed. WTC7, which was only hit by debris falling from the collapse of the first two towers, became the third such building to collapse because of fire. Even the 9/11 Commisison Report offers no explanation for its collapse.
2. Even if the steel did melt enough to cause a collapse, the steel framework in the rest of the building should have still been strong enough to support the weight of the building. If nothing else, it should have slowed the collapse considerably. Whether the collapse occured over 9 or 19 seconds, it was still way too fast.
3. Just to throw a little more fuel to the flames...you know those cell phone calls that were supposedly made from the planes? Well, there have been studies done on the chances of successfully completing a phone call at various altitudes. At the height the planes were flying at when the calls were made, there was a .07% chance of completing a call. And yet some of the calls lasted for over 20 minutes. Can you say "No Signal?" Personally, I`ve always thought the rule against cell phone was bunk, and have accidentally forgotten to turn off my phone a few times. I`ve had signals up to around 10k feet but beyond that I got nothing.
4. I don`t like to suggest an explanation for why the official story has problems -- I merely point out that it does. For nut jobs that want to suggest our government was complicit in the attack, check out Loose Change. It makes a few interesting points and goes off the deep end in a few others. |
Crazieman
Special Forces
April 9th, 2006 @ 7:13PM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 466
| 1) It was not necessary to melt the steel, its tensile strength reduces rapidly at that temperature anyway. A simple bend and its over.
2) WTCs were not a conventional framework! Floor structures supported by a central column, all held up by the outer skin. The design of which, when compressed downwards, would push the skin outwards, basically causing a complete cascade.
3) Want to link the study? The calls were cut repeatedly, there are many reports of them calling and re-calling.
4) Bahahahahahahahahaha hahahah hahaha
Moron. |
Teggy
Peon
April 9th, 2006 @ 7:50PM
Registered:
2004-04-26
Location:
USA
Posts: 32
| hey guys, yeah i don`t really know what to make of the phsysics of a falling building, there are many complications none of us know about. However take a look at this footage, you want to look at the left side of the building for concurrent clouds of billowing smoke, and also notice at the Exact same moment on the Opposite side of the building there is also the same explosion. Seconds later, the second WTC gets hit, the fireball illuminates yet another linear explosion on the face of the already struck tower. I don`t know exactly what could explode like that in a building that would effect every side of the tower at the same time. Maybe an explosion in the center?
Watch the video its short, maybe i`m just failing to think of something in the building that could cause this.
http://911blimp.net/vid_WTC1explosions.shtml
|
Laertes
Peon
April 9th, 2006 @ 8:01PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Austin
Posts: 45
| 1 and 2)
From the head of the company that certified the steel used in the WTC: "[t]he steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours before they would beging to soften and buckle." -- Structrual Failure
Moreover, the temperatures recorded in 157 of 160 panels in the outer framework did not exceed 250C. To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). Id.
According to the govt. NIST report the temperature in the core column did not exceed 250C. -- Core Temperature
An article by BYU professor Steve Jones also goes into more detail:
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
3. Best article I read was Cell Phone Hoax
There`s another one at Project Achilles
Maybe they used the in plane phones instead? That seems to be an obvious answer to this problem but contradicts the numerous reports saying that the people used their cell phones and locked themselves in the bathroom and made calls from there.
4. There`s also a BBC Article that never got much attention where they found four of the hijackers alive and well in other countries like Dubai, Egypt, etc.
5. I still have no idea what would cause WTC7 to collapse in the manner that it did since it was not hit by a plane. Anyone have any ideas or links to pages where they have a plausible explanation?
6. Just the facts here people. I personally think the article by Steve Jones from BYU has the most crediiblity since it was peer reviewed and is not merely on a website. |
Laertes
Peon
April 9th, 2006 @ 8:11PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Austin
Posts: 45
| 1 and 2)
From the head of the company that certified the steel used in the WTC: "[t]he steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours before they would beging to soften and buckle." -- Structrual Failure
Moreover, the temperatures recorded in 157 of 160 panels in the outer framework did not exceed 250C. To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). Id.
According to the govt. NIST report the temperature in the core column did not exceed 250C. -- Core Temperature
An article by BYU professor Steve Jones also goes into more detail:
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
3. Best article I read was Cell Phone Hoax
There`s another one at Project Achilles
Maybe they used the in plane phones instead? That seems to be an obvious answer to this problem but contradicts the numerous reports saying that the people used their cell phones and locked themselves in the bathroom and made calls from there.
4. There`s also a BBC Article that never got much attention where they found four of the hijackers alive and well in other countries like Dubai, Egypt, etc.
5. I still have no idea what would cause WTC7 to collapse in the manner that it did since it was not hit by a plane. Anyone have any ideas or links to pages where they have a plausible explanation?
6. Just the facts here people. I personally think the article by Steve Jones from BYU has the most crediiblity since it was peer reviewed and is not merely on a website |
LaGG
Peon v2.0
April 9th, 2006 @ 10:09PM
Registered:
2003-03-30
Location:
Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 638
| the fire wasn`t the only thing affecting the structural stability of the building it was hit by a plane and then the jetfuel explosion... probably removing any fireproofing they had put on.
it`s really not a mystery how the buildings collapsed... i`m suprised they didn`t collapse sooner.
as far as the speed of the collapse, f*ck that sh*t. it`s impossible to tell when it was finished because of all the dust, not to mention that the rubble pile itself was several stories tall, meaning it didn`t have as far to fall.
don`t say that it`s impossible to fall that fast. it happened, it`s possible. try to figure out why instead.
and what`s his conclusion? that it was all special effects? buildings don`t just disappear, or collapse faster when you demolish them on purpose. then there were several thousand eye witnesses, and several video tapes showing both colisions and collapses from multiple sources.
and if this were a conspiracy, we have the problem of why it was done. so that the government could hunt down a group of people that may or may not have been planning to do anything to us in the first place? so we could start a global war on terror and waste billions of our own money? how retarted do you have to be to believe that? |
Noss
Peon
April 9th, 2006 @ 10:25PM
Registered:
2004-02-10
Location:
Canada
Posts: 983
| I don`t get the point of this article. The only way the tower falls is by gravity, whether or not it was demolished by some other means or not. So this article proves what? That the 10 seconds time is simply incorrect? What`s the margin of error of these calculations? Considering that ALL of the resistances like air and each floor are complete unknowns, the calculations don`t fill me with belief.
Also, considering that the observed amount of time for the collapse is probably based on someone with a stopwatch looking at a video, and that the moment of impact with the ground is fairly obscured by dust and debris, it`s not difficult to see that it could be off by several seconds.
To me this article can be boiled down to; `We think we know that dropping something off the top of the WTC would take 9.2 seconds to hit the street. The falling floors must have faced resistance from air and lower floors, we have no idea how much resistance or how much time it would add to the time it takes for the building to fall though. We think it took 10 seconds because of a non-scientific report about the attacks. We think 0.8 seconds isn`t enough to account for the resistance even though we have no idea at all really. So the way everyone thinks the WTC fell is wrong and... well, we don`t really have the balls to say we think that the US government blew them up even though we think so.` |
Zamtor
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 12:51AM
Registered:
2003-04-04
Location:
Ohio
Posts: 126
| collapse
I read that and it seemed to adress most of the "the government is lieing to us" points. WTC fires burn unevenly, shifts load, buckling collapse ensues, more floors above fall as some of the outward structure bows out a little, floors below fall because of added weight and kinetic impact.
I`m sorry if I take the word of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society over at least the first site you link to. I tend to not buy into sites whose main page has Noam Chomsky quotes and ads for "Research-based garunteed results Psychic Pills"
The problem I have with the WTC was brought down by demo charges is the sheer complexity of pulling that off. Why weren`t the charges seen? We`re talking Demo charges here...not exactly small things like a satchel charge or Palastinian #243233`s chestbomb. They`re usually a story tall and wrap entirely around a support. Okay, potential problem: that stuff`s in maitenance areas, who would see that? To collapse a building like WTC using explosives you need enough demolition charges to destroy every major support on several levels of the building. Plus you need timing devices, cables for sequencing, etc. Most of this stuff isn`t small equipment. Discounting it being seen when it`s already in place, how did they sneak all that in? Then, how did the explosives, detonators, and timers survive the fires and impacts to be operational? Also if it was a demolition, then the central supports were most likely cut away substantially to ensure the explosives would do the job. How did they accomplish that without the equipment and work for just that being noticed?
Then why does the WTC collapse look like the inverse of a normal building demolition? In every single building demolition I`ve seen the bottom started to collapse down then the top followed after. Here it was inverted from that; a huge chunk of the top falling down onto still standing structure beneath. If some of those articles citing the motlen metal in pools, concluding that it could only be caused by demo charges underground like normal demolitions, are right then we should`ve seen bottom comming down first like is normal.
Lastly, Laertes points out the BBC article in 4). They found four of the SUSPECTS alive. Suspects and perpetrators are 2 different things. The fact that they`re alive proves their innocence in direct involvement. Possible explanations? How about guys who looked like them did it. There`s a guy here at BG that I`m often mistaken for because we both look, walk, move, and talk the same and we both wear khakis and white or grey shirts. The only way this one girl in my class that knows both of us can tell us apart is that I wear slightly bigger glasses with a stainless steel frame. His frames are gold tinted and smaller. If he ends up doing something illegal I could see being a suspect sans evidence other than eye-witnesses. |
Colombo
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 1:18AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
China
Posts: 448
| I look forward to Crazieman`s response.
Personally I think the whole complicit government theory is pretty damn extreme, but to think other factors where involved (hell, it could have been different al Qaeda actions) doesn`t seem that far fetched to me. |
GroverDill
Special Forces
April 10th, 2006 @ 2:53AM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 622
| I have been convinced: the World Trade Center towers did not really collapse, since their collapse is implausible to some VERY intelligent minds. The footage we all saw on TV was really an edited rerun of a GI JOE episode (#S4E7: "Destro Kicks Some Serious Ass") from 1985. |
Colombo
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 4:09AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
China
Posts: 448
| Grover, I believe Laertes and myself are not making outrageous claims like that. Perhaps some people are claiming that Bush/Cheney were the evil behind the curtain, but disregarding those loons it is still possible to say that maybe charges had been placed ahead of time.
Why would that be covered up? Maybe because they weren`t aware of these aspects initially and going back on their original story, including an admission that towers` security had been breached and explosives planted, would`ve looked incredibly bad for all goverment and private institutions involved. I`m not saying this is definitely what happened, but lets not be so naive as to think this government (and I mean that in a non-partisan way) is always inclined to tell us everything. |
Teggy
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 5:11AM
Registered:
2004-04-26
Location:
USA
Posts: 32
| http://www.gallerize.com/WINDY_TOWERS_OF_9-11_1.htm
I suppose "this" was able to happen simply by floors collapsing on each other due to shifting loads. If the underlying floor wasn`t able to provide much resistance to the falling floors above it, it should have given away pretty easily and the debris should have fallen straight down... How, then, did this happen? Propelled by air pressure from the falling building? and gravity?? i don`t think so. |
Teggy
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 5:21AM
Registered:
2004-04-26
Location:
USA
Posts: 32
| Zamtor, i read that entire page. Alot of it made great sense, and it was a very well thought out and i could tell that the authors had the best of intentions, for both sides of this conspiracy. However there are pieces of video evidence concerning ejected material from the building which simply does not fit with just collapse from Gravity. Material ejected far from its original position. Heavy material mind you, should not have been pushed this far away from the original structure simply by air pressure and gravity. Here is a rebuttal to the page you supplied. http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/
why do my websites have to have such stupid names, i don`t feel like its helping my position at all haha.
*note
you should play the video of the world trade center 7 collapse, the one titled "close up of squibs" Hopefully it will convince you that at least wtc 7 was demolished with explosives. |
April 10th, 2006 @ 6:10AM
Registered:
2005-11-11
Location:
Posts: 265
| Are area 51, the grays, UFOs, reptoids, kancho, men in black involved in the conspiracy? The government already used "the warren commission" to settle the 9/11 case and the warren commission was the same one used by the government to prove Oswald was the lone gunman who shot JFK and that he was not brainwashed by the government into committing the murder, either. |
netsavior
Grunt
April 10th, 2006 @ 9:34AM
Registered:
2003-08-13
Location:
Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 271
| my dad and I both have done considerable work in metalurgy (he even has a master's degree in it) and we both said "Oh crap they better get that fire out before the buildings collapse"
Here are a few fun facts about steel:
1) When you flex it(like say by hitting it with a massive airplane going fast), it becomes weaker
2) You do not have to melt steel to effect it's structural integrity. Any amount of heat makes it more maleable
3) Steel conducts heat, In a highrise building, the entire frame is connected, meaning if you superheat any part of it the whole frame will heat up. Another factor in the conduction is that where the fire is doesn't matter, the rest of the frame will pull heat away from the fire so that sections of it do not fail at significantly different times, they all go together.
4) Heat Expands metal... Now this all depends on what kind of rivets they used in the construction, but could be a huge factor. If the rivets conducted LESS heat than the steel beams, at some point the rivets could become loose. with all the forces (like wind and gravity) and the already twisted metal, I would bet on this theory.
Ask firefighters if steel structures are a good idea... they will tell you that they cannot fight fires as well in them because in a wood structure the fire is predictable, and the building loses structural integrity slowly and incrementally. Steel structures are different in that the whole thing "lets go" at the same time. It is perfectly structurally secure until seconds before it collapses.
All that being said, the pentagon attack was faked (or at least covered up) and they definatly shot down the other flight. Also I believe the Government is responsible for the 24 hour blackout a year later. |
Zelph01
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 11:27AM
Registered:
2005-06-20
Location:
Posts: 486
| My guess is that the BYU professor IS going to lose his job for his idiocy. The world doesn`t need revisionist historians turned physicists. |
Crazieman
Special Forces
April 10th, 2006 @ 11:29AM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 466
| Zamtor's post was better than any I could have come up with. |
Smulzie
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 12:03PM
Registered:
2003-10-14
Location:
CT
Posts: 20
| The problem I have with the WTC was brought down by demo charges is the sheer complexity of pulling that off. Why weren`t the charges seen?
Check out Loose Change on video.google.com. They show several explosions from the buildings several stories lower than where the building is colapsing. Also, several witnesses and firemen reported numerous explosions occuring in the buildings well after the planes collided into them. |
Teggy
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 2:07PM
Registered:
2004-04-26
Location:
USA
Posts: 32
| In the world trade center 7 video there is crystal clear video footage of sequential explosions moving UP the side of the building, right before and during the first second of collapse. If one building was rigged with explosives... why not the others?
Here`s the video, please watch it, this is the top sw corner of world trade center 7 50 floors. You can also see similar plumes coming out of the center of the sides of the WTC if you scroll down.
WTC7 demolition charges
@ Zelph01, before you call the BYU professor an idiot please watch his presentation first, you may just learn something, even if in the end you don`t agree with him.
BYU professor
if there`s anything you want me to read or watch on the matter please link it to me, all i ask is that you take the time to understand your opponents side before you knock it blindly.
Bulk of the presentation in text can be found here: BYU Professor Text
|
Laertes
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 8:21PM
Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Austin
Posts: 45
| I think you can explain the explosions several stories lower than where the airplanes hit fairly easily. Compression of floors on top of each other could produce lower compression explosions of material out of the building as the floors collapsed. I`d have to watch the video again to see if the lower explosions coincide with the collapse; you`d expect the explosions to start at the top and head down.
I admit that Zamtor`s link has a certain intuitive appeal to it, but it does not explain why the temperatures recorded by the Official 9/11 Report show temperatures in the collapsed steel that exceeded the maximum possible burning temperature of jet fuel. Maybe there was sulfur or something stored in the building? Maybe file cabinets containing highly confidential information were laced with thermite so that in case something like this happened they would not accidentally fall into the wrong hands? Who knows.
I still have no idea about WTC7 which was not hit by a plane. Why would the steel melt in WTC7? There was no jet fuel there nor did it have the similar core design of wtc1 and wtc2. Yet it still collapsed extremely quickly. (watch videos of it). I could see it getting demolished by debris falling from the collapse of the other two buildings, but not many hours later from a fire.
As for the BBC article, I think you need to read it closer. It does not say that the four men found alive LOOK like the 9/11 terrorists; rather, it says that their PICTURES and NAMES/b> matched those that were officially released.
I personally blame it on government incompetence instead of government complicity. There`s no way our government could pull something as complicated as this off without screwing it up. |
bomberman
Peon
April 10th, 2006 @ 10:19PM
Registered:
2003-03-28
Location:
Texas
Posts: 145
| All that being said, the pentagon attack was faked (or at least covered up) and they definatly shot down the other flight. Also I believe the Government is responsible for the 24 hour blackout a year later.
Then what happened to the people on the pentagon plane???? And why would they fake the pentagon and not the WTC????? |
Slippy
beat junkie
April 10th, 2006 @ 11:50PM
Registered:
2003-03-28
Location:
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 333
| Loose Change is a great video, and there are many other video's on the internet that will also expose more info with regards to the buildings. Yes they collapsed, but probably not due to any traditional means that we know of. I still buy into the theory that missiles were launched from the planes prior to their crashing into the buildings.
In response to Lagg: "and if this were a conspiracy, we have the problem of why it was done. so that the government could hunt down a group of people that may or may not have been planning to do anything to us in the first place? so we could start a global war on terror and waste billions of our own money? how retarted do you have to be to believe that?"
Well, it doesn't take a retard to figure out the possible answer. In a word: oil. Oil, my friend, is the real reason why most of this, if not all of this, took place. Yes we wasted billions of our own money, only to get trillions back in the long run... it's called "global investing" :P |
bomberman
Peon
April 11th, 2006 @ 1:00AM
Registered:
2003-03-28
Location:
Texas
Posts: 145
| still buy into the theory that missiles were launched from the planes prior to their crashing into the buildings.
Then what happened to the passengers on the planes?!?!?!? |
Crazieman
Special Forces
April 11th, 2006 @ 5:58AM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 466
| I must thank Nebu for this thread, because I can see the future so clearly now.
I'm going to be filthy rich.
I'm buying stock in Alcoa. |
Teggy
Peon
April 11th, 2006 @ 5:39PM
Registered:
2004-04-26
Location:
USA
Posts: 32
| Laertas, compare the explosions below the collapsing floor of the WTC with these. (Specifically look for the Southwark towers in Philidelphia, bottom row 3rd from left). Real Demolition squibs to compare
Do you find it funny that they look exactly the same, only difference being the WTC appeared to be timed sequentially as it fell?
Also if it were compressed air coming out the side of the buildings wouldn`t it come out along the entire row of windows? The plumes in the WTC are coming out of point sources in the center of the building (you can see a plume on the face of the building facing the camera). The only other way it could do this and not be an explosion is maybe the air is being funneled down a hallway in the center of the building?
Also i think i messed up all of my links in my previous posts with apostrophes at the beginning and end of the URL, if you want to watch em you need only delete those. |
GroverDill
Special Forces
May 1st, 2006 @ 11:45PM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 622
| Grover, I believe Laertes and myself are not making outrageous claims like that.
Are you calling my "Destro" theory outrageous? No you didn't - NO YOU DID N'T. |
