Never thought I'd come back to this forum, but I have some questions to official lie...er, story su

I've been thinking about this for a while, but I just saw a post that made me decide to go ahead and put it down.

Big ups, shurikensimon, for reminding me of this.

5 World Trade Center

Any official story people care to tell me why WTC 5 didn't collapse like WTC 7 and the twins?

Also, why were these jihadi geniuses smart enough to run this operation from a cave thousands of miles away, yet weren't smart enough to:

1. Attack the buildings at a time in the day that would have maximized casualties, hence maximize terror?

2. Crash the final plane into its intended target?

3. Keep the Feds from figuring out who did it THE NEXT DAY!?

4. Hit the Pentagon in the area where top brass was located, and that was NOT under construction?

Also, why wasn't Saudi Arabia, the nation where 15 of the hijackers were from, assaulted American style?

One more thing: why couldn't they switch over from war games, 9/11-style, to real life 9/11?

- Why it didn't colapse...who knows. Constructed in a different way than 7, differerent damage. It's apples and oranges

- I don't think the time of the attack mattered too much. It was pretty terrorizing as it was don't you think?

- 2 theories....it was as is stated in the official version, and the hijackers crashed it on purpose as they thought they were going to be overrun, or, it was shot down.

- There was speculation right away it was al-queda. Seemed the most logical group to throw blame at.

- Hitting the pentagon at all was pretty amazing...pinpointing a small section where top brass might be would be kinda difficult.

- Saudi Arabia? HAH...they are best friends with Bush and his gang.

Attack the buildings at a time in the day that would have maximized casualties, hence maximize terror?

I've always figured that their greatest chance of success in getting through airport security was during a morning commuter rush...just a guess. Like sensfan said...I think you would still have to give them an "A" for Terror.

Crash the final plane into its intended target?

I think in terms of an operation, having 3 out of 4 planes find their target was more than they could have hoped for...a real success.


Keep the Feds from figuring out who did it THE NEXT DAY!?

Why would they want to keep it a secret? The problem with terrorists is not finding out who did something...it's usually weeding out the people who CLAIM they did it, but didn't.


Hit the Pentagon in the area where top brass was located, and that was NOT under construction?

Considering many CTers argue that they wouldn't even have the skill to hit the building AT ALL, I think you're getting pretty picky to ask them to park a 757 in a specific OFFICE.


Okay, my turn, here's a couple questions for you:

If the government is all-powerful and brilliant enough to STAGE an event like 9/11:

1) Why didn't they "control" the demolition to have the buildings fall in a "more realistic" fashion?

2) Why didn't they STAGE WMDs in Iraq?

3) Why didn't they manipulate the SEC to hide stock market activity in the same way that they manipulated NORAD, the FAA, FEMA, NIST, FDNY, etc., etc., etc.?



[edit on 29-3-2007 by Essedarius]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Essedarius]

You would scream conspiracy either way no matter how it happened. Cheers

I posted about this with more detailed info on this thread:

Fully-Involved Fire Does NOT Cause WTC Complex Building to Collapse

WTC5 was pummeled heavily by debris and had fire spread far more throughout its structure than WTC7 ever did.

Somebody says "apples to oranges". It's not apples to oranges. They were both steel-framed. One was a skyscraper, one wasn't. That means WTC5 had smaller columns, less columns, and it would not have had the same redundancy as the skyscrapers. And it was more fully involved in fire than any of them, and also heavily damaged by debris.

Originally posted by sensfan
- Why it didn't colapse...who knows. Constructed in a different way than 7, differerent damage. It's apples and oranges

No it's not. Steel is steel is steel. The only difference between 5, 7 and the towers could be the use of A36 steel as oppossed to A50 steel. At any rate, the columns would be designed to hold the weight (in designing you pick a member that will hold the weight plus a factor of safety). So, the weight being held by the columns in 7 would be relative to the weight being held by the columns in 5. If fire can cause steel to loose it's structural integrity in one instance it would do the same in the other. No matter what weight was above the structure because those columns were designed to carry that weight to begin with. Also, a smaller column in 5 would heat up faster than a larger column in 7. I have started some empirical calculations to prove this. I'll post my findings once I have the time to finish it.

I think I may have just proven myself wrong.

Image

Look it over and see what you think. If I made a mistake somewhere please show me.

The reason is that the smaller member can't hold the load, so the design axial strength is reduced far more than the stronger member. Thus, since the fire takes away the strength in a percentage, a percentage of a larger number becomes that much larger. Making any sense?

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 30/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by sensfan
- Why it didn't colapse...who knows. Constructed in a different way than 7, differerent damage. It's apples and oranges

So...

Bldgs 7 and the twins, with different types of damage, fall EXACTLY the same way, yet bldg 5, with SIMILAR damage to 7, doesn't fall at all? Riiiight.

- I don't think the time of the attack mattered too much. It was pretty terrorizing as it was don't you think?

No, I don't. I think that terrorists who hate America's GUTS would want to kill as many people of the Great Satan as possible.

- 2 theories....it was as is stated in the official version, and the hijackers crashed it on purpose as they thought they were going to be overrun, or, it was shot down.

Still doesn't account for the precision with every other aspect of the attack.

- There was speculation right away it was al-queda. Seemed the most logical group to throw blame at.

Al-CIA-da is NOT what I meant. I meant how the identities of ALL 19 hijackers turned up IMMEDIATELY.

- Hitting the pentagon at all was pretty amazing...pinpointing a small section where top brass might be would be kinda difficult.

Indeed...just like hitting a section where construction just HAPPENED to be underway.

- Saudi Arabia? HAH...they are best friends with Bush and his gang.

Well, we are in agreement on this one.

Uh, Griff...I have NO idea what your calculations mean.

Ok, it seems like one of the buildings has a higher Kips (whatever that is) than the other. Can you break that down into dummy terms for me?

As soon as I saw dimensional analysis, I was like "got damn, physics." Never could get my brain around that branch of science...

Basically what I did was take the smallest w member from the steel manual and compared it to the largest w member of the steel manual. To be exact, I'd have to compare the actual columns in the buildings. Plus, I used w members, it could turn out to be different with box columns (totally different make-up). I didn't do box columns because the manual doesn't have them in it.

It breaks down to the strength of the smaller column is such that it can't hold as much (on a relative basis) as the larger member. But, since fire reduces the strength by a percentage, the larger member that could hold more is actually going to fail before the smaller member that doesn't have as much load. It differs with a lot of variables, so my analysis is not complete and can't be exact without knowing what the columns are and such.

Hope that helps and if I can explain anything more, I'll try. I'm a structural engineer but I've never designed a highrise building. It's similar to the things that I do but different also.

Ah, that makes more sense now.

So, you're saying that the size of the beams in the smaller building actually helped to prevent a collapse, due to less load applying force to them? So basically, you would expect bldg 5 to stand longer than bldg 7?

Let me know if this is the correct conclusion so far. Also, let me know if you think WTC 5 WOULD have collapsed straight down, were the load massive enough to cause the beams to fail.

Did you consider the fact that the larger quantity of steel is also a greater heat sink, though?

Originally posted by truthseeka
So, you're saying that the size of the beams in the smaller building actually helped to prevent a collapse, due to less load applying force to them? So basically, you would expect bldg 5 to stand longer than bldg 7?

Actually, my analysis is too basic to come to any conclusion thus far. What I'm missing in my data is the time factor. I need someone who knows thermodynamics to help. Anyone? My comparison can only be taken at face value because it is a comparison of the members if they both were heated (absorbing heat) at the same rate. That wouldn't happen. The larger member would absord the heat slower than the smaller. What I'm going to do next is found out at what temperature the two members would fail at the same loads as before. What I need is someone to calculate how long it would take for each member to obtain that heat. So in conclusion, I can't really give my opinion on the matter yet.

Originally posted by Inannamute
Did you consider the fact that the larger quantity of steel is also a greater heat sink, though?

Ah, right you are. Good eye. See post above.

Bear in mind also that in my analysis, I used the smallest member. That member would never be used as a load bearing column in a highrise building. It's allowable design load is only 20% of it's yield strength as oppossed to the larger member where it's allowable design load is 65% of it's yield strength. The columns in the actual building probably fall somewhere in between and therefore would be closer in temperature and % of design strengths and such. I have found the temperature that would be needed for failure of the members above.

A36 W4x13 1313 F (711.67 C)

A36 W14x808 1050 F (565.56 C)

I can post my calculations if anyone wants to see them. I couldn't find anything on A50 steel yet.

BTW, since it was asked and I keep meaning to mention it, a Kip is a kilopound which is 1,000 pounds. So, when it says 137.88 kips it means 137,880 pounds force. Pounds force is different than pounds weight. I just say that to clarify why I say it is pounds force.

Edit: Another thing about this analysis. It doesn't take into consideration any redundancy. The loads are at 100% design load. It matters when it comes to redundancy because the design load would be a percentage less than 100%. WTC 7 being a highrise would have much more redundancy than WTC 5. This also has to be taken into acount.

[edit on 3/30/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 3/30/2007 by Griff]

ahh now what would be really interesting to me griff.

if you can look at the plans for any given building in the wtc complex and tell me how many columns, realistically, it would take to lose integrity all at once and give me their specs (dimensions thickness etc) and ill do the demo calcs and we'll see just how much explosive we would have REALLY needed. (precutting aside, you cant do much precutting in a building that still has people running around in it, each person in the building adds another 120-200 lbs and that adds up fast so your margin for error goes through the roof and why bother? you can still blast the columns without precutting them)

thsi could interest me

We'd have to figure on what floors. But I'm game to start looking into this. I haven't fully looked at the plans that were leaked yet. I'll see what I can come up with. May take me awhile though because as I've said, I don't have box column data in front of me.

Damocles,

What would you need? Would it be like an area reduction or something? That would affect the yield strength.

[edit on 3/30/2007 by Griff]

Dear truthseeka:

You simply gotta post these thoughts of yours in SkepticOverlord’s perpetually ongoing competition “Win 250,000 Points: What Are The Top-5 9/11 Conspiracies?”. www.abovetopsecret.com...' Your logic is soo solid!

Originally posted by truthseeka

Also, why were these jihadi geniuses smart enough to run this operation from a cave thousands of miles away, yet weren't smart enough to:

1. Attack the buildings at a time in the day that would have maximized casualties, hence maximize terror?

2. Crash the final plane into its intended target?

3. Keep the Feds from figuring out who did it THE NEXT DAY!?

4. Hit the Pentagon in the area where top brass was located, and that was NOT under construction?

(5.) Also, why wasn't Saudi Arabia, the nation where 15 of the hijackers were from, assaulted American style?

(6.=bonus reason) One more thing: why couldn't they switch over from war games, 9/11-style, to real life 9/11?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

griff,
outside dimensions of the columns (box correct?(ok i know they are more rectangle but u know what i mean)) or size of the Ibeams wehre applicable, (different calcs) then the thickness of the steel or webs on an ibeam

get me just one and ill tell you how much one would take, from there we can discuss how many and on how many floors.