WTC Explosives: A Scientific Analysis

This is a great video, excerpts from main stream news sources and lectures given by members of the 9/11 Scholars organization. Very informative, and very science based, with very little of the wild speculation which hampers much of the discussion of what happened on 9/11.

Watch The Video Here

To those who continually defend the official story, I have several questions.

#1 - I have frequently heard people state that "explosives couldn't have been used, because no one heard explosives going off". This video, during the first five minutes, presents eyewitness account after eyewitness account of the sounds of explosions, bombs, etc. going off in the buildings. So if you have a different explanation for those explosions, that's fine, but let's establish here and now that there most certainly were eye witness accounts of explosions after the planes had impacted. So what is your explanation for these secendary explosions?

#2 - If the official story and the 9/11 commission reports are to be believed, why do they deny the existance of the 47 core columns so clearly seen during the construction of the buildings and in all the blue prints?

#3 - What is your response to the NIST's estimate that the core columns would only have reached a temperature of 600 degrees, rather than the 1500 degrees needed to cause the softening of the steel?

I beleive all of these points have been debunked before.

Firstoff - if you have much real-world experience - you'll know that, durring a large fire, many, MANY things will 'sound like explosions'. One particular case is concrete, itself - air bubbles trapped inside will expand with the increase in temperature and cause, litterally, an explosion - not one caused by pyrotechnicians, but simple laws of nature.

Many things can sound not unlike an explosion - especially when you have a building that is within moments of colapse - when steel supports under hundreds of thousands of pounds of torsion stress that will snap and create an ear-shattering pop.... but very little concussion that would signify a bomb. The lack of ultralow frequency sounds from the colapse as well as supersonic overpressure indicates that there were no demolition explosives used.

47 core columns? Do you know how the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were constructed? They were steel supported concrete shafts up the center, surrounded by a steel-mesh exterior 'cage' that is really the key to the design's incredible sturdiness and strength. However, no building that large can be designed to sustain a deliberate impact from a kamakazie airliner the size of today's larger airliners.

Any 'core columns' would have been encased in a few feet of concrete - requiring a LOT of preliminary work to prepare them for demolition. Weeks of preparation if the entire site were clear and everything went on schedule.

Your third point is also really in ignorance of the whole picture. You have several floors of nearly compromized external steel support. You then have internal steel being heated through the concrete and through the natural conductive properties of the steel - meaning that several floors on both ends of the impact could have reached 600+ degrees, easily. Possibly as many as twenty floors below, steel was reaching 400 degrees.

No metal or alloy that I am aware of sustains a constant strength when its temperature changes. That means that steel heated to 100 degrees is somewhat weaker than steel at 75 degrees. That volume of steel across that area of supporwork equates to the ultimate failure of the structure.

Originally posted by Aim64C
I beleive all of these points have been debunked before.

Firstoff - if you have much real-world experience - you'll know that...

What you said next didn't necessarily make any "real-world" sense.

47 core columns? Do you know how the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were constructed? They were steel supported concrete shafts up the center, surrounded by a steel-mesh exterior 'cage' that is really the key to the design's incredible sturdiness and strength.

Any 'core columns' would have been encased in a few feet of concrete ...

Oops...you just played your hand, and it was the "pair of 2's and I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about" hand. NO...they were not "steel supported concrete shafts up the center" and no they weren't "encased in a few feet of concrete".

Your third point is also really in ignorance of the whole picture.

Actually, it's not, and the rest of your response is so off from the facts, I beg of you to go off, spend a few days just researching what you're attempting to discuss and come back to this thread, because the bad science (from both sides of this argument) has been discussed far too much on this very site for anyone to have to recall them for you.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Aim64C
I beleive all of these points have been debunked before.

Firstoff - if you have much real-world experience - you'll know that...

What you said next didn't necessarily make any "real-world" sense.

47 core columns? Do you know how the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were constructed? They were steel supported concrete shafts up the center, surrounded by a steel-mesh exterior 'cage' that is really the key to the design's incredible sturdiness and strength.

Any 'core columns' would have been encased in a few feet of concrete ...

Oops...you just played your hand, and it was the "pair of 2's and I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about" hand. NO...they were not "steel supported concrete shafts up the center" and no they weren't "encased in a few feet of concrete".

Your third point is also really in ignorance of the whole picture.

Actually, it's not, and the rest of your response is so off from the facts, I beg of you to go off, spend a few days just researching what you're attempting to discuss and come back to this thread, because the bad science (from both sides of this argument) has been discussed far too much on this very site for anyone to have to recall them for you.

I thuroughly enjoy how you do not back up a single one of your claims other than accusing me of being intellectually inferior to you. My appologies for overstepping my boundaries. Now if you'll be kind enough to let the idiot express his views to those stupid enough to listen to him.

If you don't understand the dynamics of various explosions, their causes, and effects - then I fail to see why you have an opinion on this thread. But since you don't understand what overpressure is and how it relates to explosions (and thus, their causes), then I guess I understand why you would beleive the ridiculous notion that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives.

en.wikipedia.org...

To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building.

I sort of exagerated with several feet of concrete - but not to be deceptive. It was a central shaft - or core. It's not your column and platter stlye building - there is no way that a steel or concrete building could reach such heights using such a primitive construction method.

I suggest you go do your homework. Engineering is my home turf - and you're going to have to do better than ill executed bluffs to shake me.

Originally posted by Aim64C


I suggest you go do your homework. Engineering is my home turf - and you're going to have to do better than ill executed bluffs to shake me.

No I'm not, because I and various others have already, right here. Like I said before, you'd serve YOURSELF (because other than just irritating those of us who already have, it doesn't matter to us) well if you'd research this a little.

Your turf or not...you're speaking wrongly, and that's about as diplomatic as I can be.

Conveniently ignoring the points specifically countering your own.

I think you're speaking wrongly, and knowingly so. Which would brand you under a certain class of people whose role is specifically to mislead people and cause trouble.

If you've already debated and proved my cases wrong - then it surely wouldn't hurt you to do it again. Because you've aparently said something that I have not before read out of your ridiculous claims.

Although, your goal is to mislead and prey on those who do not have an aptitude for these issues - so you will flee from me with these similar comments no matter what I say.

Just like that old saying that all the darkness in the universe cannot destroy the smallest shred of light.

Well, where should I start?

Oh wait, I remember...here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's best to start at the beginning and end near the finish.

Good luck and may the force be with you...little one.

Mhmm.... right.... anything new?

Anything specifically relating to what I said.

I've read most of that - and my data is sufficient enough to discredit most of what claims have been made in this forum already.

I've seen nothing but quackery and deception spilling from many of those who uphold the conspiracy theories.

I can vouch for what Val's saying about reading up first, Aim. Not to be biased or anything; I really don't care.


Athenion --

What I think we should keep in mind a lot more often, is that every time we offer evidence, and the "debunkers" offer a counter explanation, that is not a debunking. It is simply offering an alternative explanation. And the vast majority of the time, those alternative explanations make just as many assumptions, if not more, and sometimes don't even make sense, ie the Towers somehow being air tight when steel beams were flying outwards from the collapse waves.

What is ridiculous, is how people come on here and claim that such-and-such is debunked just because they can imagine up an alternative explanation for the same phenomena or event or etc.

I think that the sheer monumental task of having to arm a building such as the WTC for explosives would be debunking enough.

That combined with the fact that there are much more scientifically sound explainations for the events that take place - would be 'debunking' a 'possible' scenario.

And I have read up - more than many people. I've followed this issue from the very beginning when it was evidence that it was missiles or drones that hit the towers, rather than aircraft. Since then it's just been a cascading retreat to defend an ideal that is designed purely to create a rift between the people and the government, upset the process of government in the U.S. and open it up to civil war and incorporation into a new global government, spearheaded by the U.N.

It's nothing more than a power trip designed to prey on those who do not have the natural ability to process and understand structural and thermal physics.

And if the evidence is so ready to disprove what I have said - then go ahead and unleash it on me and make a liar out of me. It'll gain more support for your cause.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Mhmm.... right.... anything new?

Anything specifically relating to what I said.

I've read most of that - and my data is sufficient enough to discredit most of what claims have been made in this forum already.

I've seen nothing but quackery and deception spilling from many of those who uphold the conspiracy theories.

Then where have you been? You've been a member here for 2 months and now you're a specialist in engineering who claims the WTC cores were reinforced with concrete?

Give me a break.

1. No they weren't. Other than the steel columns they had 2" thick gypsum board (real thick sheetrock).

2. Explosions - everything from "exploding concrete" is the answer. No it's not. Immediately after, if not within minutes of, the first plane impact there were reports of explosions and collapses in the basement level (B4) and the 22nd floor. The bridge collapsed long enough before the first tower started collapsing that the firefighters that were in it at the time had time to escape it's collapse, run for safety to a nearby ambulance, and watch both towers fall.

3. NIST gives no data of any steel reaching elevated temperatures on floors significantly below the impact zone. And they limit the impact zone steel to the statement (paraphrased but message sent) "no structural members were exposed to these elevated temperatures for the duration of the time".

You need to read the NIST report, because you are not now, nor will you in any future posts, given the luxury of pulling statements out of your ass that are in contrast to what NIST states - and then using those statements to make some great "engineering" statement.

Don't work that way.


[edit on 8-22-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Aim64C
I think that the sheer monumental task of having to arm a building such as the WTC for explosives would be debunking enough.

Of course. Logistics overrides physical impossibilities. Always.

That combined with the fact that there are much more scientifically sound explainations for the events that take place - would be 'debunking' a 'possible' scenario.

Read Valhall's post above. Even by the NIST Report on the Towers, a collapse should not have initiated. They failed to back up their theory in two separate tests, including a computer model in which they admitted to cranking up the parameters (which they failed to release) to a "more severe" set, than what would have realistically taken place. They couldn't get enough failures, in the given amount of time. And then they publish their "findings" as if they were somehow credible.

Even the figures they give for safety factor ratings in the columns disprove their buckling garbage when compared to the actual images. This has also been covered in detail in other posts.

And I have read up - more than many people.

From where? Where do you read things that lead you to believe this?:

Originally posted by Aim64C
They were steel supported concrete shafts up the center, surrounded by a steel-mesh exterior 'cage' that is really the key to the design's incredible sturdiness and strength. However, no building that large can be designed to sustain a deliberate impact from a kamakazie airliner the size of today's larger airliners.

"Steel-mesh exterior 'cage'"? I'm sorry, what is the structural purpose of "steel-mesh" around a column, again? And above all, where is this coming from, exactly? The BBC reported a single reinforced-concrete shaft in the middle of the building, but no one has really ever taken that seriously. You can even look up construction photographs and disprove that one pretty easily.

[edit on 22-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Valhall and bsbray, thanks as always for your informed and wonderful responses.

They were steel supported concrete shafts up the center, surrounded by a steel-mesh exterior 'cage' that is really the key to the design's incredible sturdiness and strength

Looks like steel columns to me. In fact, if we go to the official NIST report, in the executive summary we read:

The core columns, floor trusses, and beams and spandrel plates in the exterior wall were constructed with carbon steels, ranging from 36 to 50 ksi specified yield strength. The exterior columns were designed with various grades of high strength steels, ranging from 55 ksi to 100 ksi yield strength.

oops...so much for the concrete core theory...You really ought to at least read the NIST report if you're going to back it as fact.


Edited to correct the tags for an external source.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Athenion]

The explosions in the basement and on the 20 levels were actually jet fuel that shot down the elevator shafts. They were reported at first as explosions because no one knew the tower had been hit. If anything, they heard the impact and felt the building shake. It was an instant flashback to 93.

Also, please be ready to provide the correct info if you want to argue, and not embarrass those of us who try to keep the glvoes on.

Remember also, you cannot debunk something that is not true or in itself cannot be proven, therefore life is a journey of conjecture and false gods.

Originally posted by esdad71
The explosions in the basement and on the 20 levels were actually jet fuel that shot down the elevator shafts.

Riiiiight. Jet fuel ran unignited 1,110 ft. down the elevator shafts that only ran 1/3 up the building and were sealed? Then there was enough fuel left for the giant fireball on impact? Where are you getting this SOLID piece of information from?

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, please be ready to provide the correct info if you want to argue, and not embarrass those of us who try to keep the glvoes on.

Where are the sources for ANYTHING you have posted? You state everything as FACT but then offer on links, sources or citations. How do you know YOUR info is correct? I think it is impossible for what you claim above to have happened. What is the source of your CORRECT information? What is your criteria for CORRECT information?

Originally posted by esdad71
Remember also, you cannot debunk something that is not true or in itself cannot be proven, therefore life is a journey of conjecture and false gods.

See above. Pot meet kettle.

Originally posted by Aim64C
en.wikipedia.org...

I sort of exagerated with several feet of concrete... -

Engineering is my home turf - and you're going to have to do better than ill executed bluffs to shake me.

1. WIKIPEDIA is not a reliable source. I just edited the pag to make what you have referenced false.

2. "Sorta Exxagerated" is like "kind of lied"...

3. Engineering is the "home turf" of many posters on this board and your arguments, typing style and methods seem to indicate that you are not a formally trained engineer. What is the exact nature of your training which places you above me on the "home turf" of engineering?

Originally posted by Aim64C
Firstoff - if you have much real-world experience - you'll know that, durring a large fire, many, MANY things will 'sound like explosions'. One particular case is concrete, itself - air bubbles trapped inside will expand with the increase in temperature and cause, litterally, an explosion - not one caused by pyrotechnicians, but simple laws of nature.

popping or chipping at best and it is not the "air bubbles" it is trapped moisture that expands. Firefighter KNOW very well the difference between "poppoing" concrete and EXPLOSIONS.

Originally posted by esdad71
... of pounds of torsion stress that will snap and create an ear-shattering pop....

No one claims that this occured, not even the NIST.

Originally posted by esdad71
Do you know how the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were constructed?

Nothing like you describe. 7 was totally different then 1 and 2.

Originally posted by esdad71
Any 'core columns' would have been encased in a few feet of concrete.

100% WRONG and false. Source?

Originally posted by esdad71
Your third point is also really in ignorance of the whole picture. You have several floors of nearly compromized external steel support.

Considering alll four sides could distribute the load, only about 20% of the "cage" would be compromized. The designer likened this to the effecto of "pushing a pencil through a window screen".

Originally posted by esdad71
You then have internal steel being heated through the concrete and through the natural conductive properties of the steel - meaning that several floors on both ends of the impact could have reached 600+ degrees, easily. Possibly as many as twenty floors below, steel was reaching 400 degrees.

Source for this? For if the heat transfer was that good, the core would have wickled away so much heat that the trusses would not have expanded at all.

Originally posted by esdad71
That means that steel heated to 100 degrees is somewhat weaker than steel at 75 degrees.

Yeah... by maybe .1% or so... weak argument. Show me the source for temperatures required to weaken steel, I don't feel like looking, it is on this site. The buildings were REDUNDANT and losing .1% of their load capacity is like farting on a brick... the brick is unfased.

Originally posted by esdad71
The explosions in the basement and on the 20 levels were actually jet fuel that shot down the elevator shafts. They were reported at first as explosions because no one knew the tower had been hit. If anything, they heard the impact and felt the building shake. It was an instant flashback to 93.

Excuse me, but you have absolutely no proof to support this statement. So we need to not wander off into presenting suppositions as fact.

The explosions in the basement ...................... were actually jet fuel that shot down the elevator shafts.

Is this today's deliberate mistake thread?
So many, but most have been dealt with.
As regards the one above, only one elevator ran from impact level to basement and there was someone in it at the time, a Mr. Griffith.
Only two others ran from impact to lobby and the testimony of Lieutenat William Walsh tells us that the affected elevators were those which served only the lower storeys.

Gordon.

Originally posted by gordonross
The explosions in the basement ...................... were actually jet fuel that shot down the elevator shafts.

Is this today's deliberate mistake thread?
So many, but most have been dealt with.
As regards the one above, only one elevator ran from impact level to basement and there was someone in it at the time, a Mr. Griffith.
Only two others ran from impact to lobby and the testimony of Lieutenat William Walsh tells us that the affected elevators were those which served only the lower storeys.

Gordon.

aye, gordon. every board has it's parrots, and some are even 'the usual suspects'. and they all say, 'JET FUEL! MIRACLE JET FUEL!' in that squeaky parrot voice.
and they say, 'NO EVIDENCE!!!! NO EVIDENCE!!!!'.

OCT logic 101:

1. no bombs are needed, gravity did it.
2. if there were bombs, it would take MONTHS to put in the THOUSANDS OF POUNDS of explosives REQUIRED

rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat....