So if the planes could not have taken down the WTC.....

"Further you may want to reconsider if said jet fuel, which mostly burst and exploded externally to the WTC, is capable of causing the bulk of the WTC to sublimate into a 'pyroclastic flow' that covers all of the financial district, leaving behind two stories of rubble in the foot print."

That wasn't the fault of the jet fuel obviously. There wasn't enormous dust clouds
when the planes hit, but when the buildings collapsed.

What is the energy involved in the mass of the WTC buildings collapsing? A hell of a lot being released all at once with stupendously violent collisions. Bang concrete against stuff together fast enough, and it turns to dust.

What else would you expect if the building collapsed ? The building collapse looked like any other building collapse, natural or artificial. It's how buildings fall when they lose structural support, regardless of the cause.

"It seems, FredT, that most civil engineers form the consensus that fire even by jet fuel, cannot and never has destroyed a steel framed building."

And how did an open framed bridge beam, with enormously less weight and load, weaken and collapse from a fire in air versus a huge chimney which was unextinguishable the entire time?

Does the 'black smoke' evident in 9/11 and today in Oakland, mean that the fire is supposedly not hot enough? No. That's another unscientific fallacy.

It means only that SOME of the fire is cool, namely the outside parts.

WTC was also an unusual and atypical design, with fewer internal supports and less concrete than common now.

And from what I heard on local news here is there was diesel fuel in that tanker.... Not jet fuel..

So there may be a tad difference between the 2.

Diesel fuel is the closest common refined petroleum product to jet fuel.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Jet fuel is very similar to diesel fuel..."

[edit on 29-4-2007 by mbkennel]

[edit on 29-4-2007 by mbkennel]

Originally posted by mbkennel
That wasn't the fault of the jet fuel obviously. There wasn't enormous dust clouds when the planes hit, but when the buildings collapsed.

A purely kinetic collapse does NOT create that volume of equally micronized dust and gaseous metal.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Bang concrete against stuff together fast enough, and it turns to dust.

You can't be serious.

Originally posted by mbkennel
And how did an open framed bridge beam, with enormously less weight and load, weaken and collapse from a fire in air versus a huge chimney which was unextinguishable the entire time?

Forget the bridge. Focus on steel framed skyscrapers. Focus on what numerous structural engineers have said about this.

FredT regurgitated:

As I tried to point out, the reinforced concrete structure of the I-80 interchage collapsed without any of the physical trauma of a 500000 lb airline travaling at high speed. It collapsed because its structure was weakend by heat of the fire raging underneath it. Much like the WTC.

You're not really that far off. If larger sections of I-80 had simultaneously collapsed... for instance spanning from S.F. to - say - *Chicago*.... then the magnitude of this collapse would be more comparable to the WTC scenario.

[blockquote]You still have to explain how pieces of the facade, weighing tons, was ejected laterally up to 600 ft.
You still have to explain how all the concrete, office furniture, bodies, turned into a fine dust.
You have to explain how the lower undamaged floors offered no resistance, and the collapse accelerated instead of slowed down.
You have to explain how the momentum of the top section of the South Tower was changed, when no other energy was supposed to be acting on the tower after the initial plane impact and fires, and just before the global collapse.
You still have to explain how a building can fall with all four corners at the same time from unsymmetrical damage and fires on only a few floors.
You still have to explain what caused the visible squibs seen in many videos (and no it wasn't compressed air). [/blockquote]

People don't understand the physical mechanics of building collapses.

"You have to explain how the lower undamaged floors offered no resistance, and the collapse accelerated instead of slowed down."

Collapse accelerates because of gravitational acceleration, of course. WTC was extremely tall.

When you have a dynamic load the impact of the falling high floors against the structure below, it is far, far beyond design specifications and the structural members all throughouth the structure will blow up.

This impact travels down at the speed of sound in steel, which is very fast, and blows out the structural integrity everywhere. Since of course buildings are extremely heavy, the load is highest on the bottom, and therefore they're the most likely to give up.

When that happens, there is nothing keeping the rest of the building up, and of course it all falls down 'like in free fall'---because that's what the physics of building collapses is all about! You have to think about real life physics and not 'movie physics' which is done for visual reasons, not accuracy.

"You still have to explain how all the concrete, office furniture, bodies, turned into a fine dust."?

All? surely not. There was a huge pile of solid debris. But isn't it obvious? What would happen if you dropped an enormous pile of concrete from the height of the WTC? Every intentional building demolition also makes giant clouds of dust, and most of those buildings are much smaller than the WTC.

"You have to explain how the momentum of the top section of the South Tower was changed, when no other energy was supposed to be acting on the tower after the initial plane impact and fires, and just before the global collapse."

Uh, physics? Think of a lumberjack cutting away at one section of a tree. Cut far enough, and the tree will fall. What gave the tree the momentum to fall in one direction?
Gravity and the remaining force upward of the structural element holding the remainder of the tree, temporarily, puts a torque on the upper part of the tree. During the tree collapse the force on the remaining part can overload the strength and blow it out too.
In the WTC collapse this happened early, on account of the enormous weight and loads.

"You still have to explain how a building can fall with all four corners at the same time from unsymmetrical damage and fires on only a few floors."

Once you blow out some structural members, the remaining force is transmitted at the speed of sound to the others which are immensely overloaded, so they blow out nearly simultaneously. At that point there isn't any substantial force upward on anything, since everything below you is dropping down at nearly the acceleration of gravity, you do too. Galilean relativity. Of course the top floors will then fall down at nearly the acceleration of gravity. What else would they do?

Just above you pointed out the tilt in the south tower before it collapsed so it didn't quite fall with all four corners at the same time initially, since there was some asymmetrical structural integrity (i.e. force upward) for a small interval of time.

"You still have to explain what caused the visible squibs seen in many videos (and no it wasn't compressed air)."

Corroborating evidence of internal structural members blowing out due to failure from excessive loads.

I have no skin in this game except good science.

None of the conspiracy theories even make logical sense, either.

If it were a controlled demolition, why bother with the planes?

If it were some hypothetical "remote control", then why the phone calls and ATC radio about hijackers?

If it were an "inside black bag" demolition (which is very difficult to believe, even if ordered by psychotic neocons), then why not blame the bombing on Saddam's secret service? The previous WTC attack was a bombing, so it would fit in extremely well. That's what people were expecting. ABC you're done and off to bomb Baghdad.

And if it were warmonger neocons, then WHY THE PENTAGON? Why not Disneyland or Yankee stadium?

This is a known fact: the neocons were fixated on Iraq, and didn't give a crap about Afghanistan.

The conspiracy is obvious in front of our face: making up stuff to go to war in Iraq with spurious 9/11 excuses.

Believe what the government tells you ok. But you have to decide for yourself on whats fiction and whats real.

The wtc 1,2 and 7 collasped due to structural failure. Thats what you believe.
The bridge in SF collasped due to the fire I saw it and the intensity is the reason why it collapesd also due to the reason that the tar and asphault that isn't exactly fire proof.

Concrete can crumble into dust if the right pressure in inflicted on it. What do you think concrete is made out of? Sand, lyme and water. Lyme is a very fine powder.


[edit on 4/29/2007 by Leyla]

quote: Originally posted by mbkennel
Bang concrete against stuff together fast enough, and it turns to dust.


You can't be serious.

Sure I am.

Where does all the dust in a volcanic explosion come from? It wasn't dust in the ground, it was solid rock.

When a tank shoots an artillery shell against a building and it collapses, what do you get, dust.

When else has a building as high (controlling kinetic energy of course) and large as the WTC collapsed before?

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
FredT regurgitated:

As I tried to point out, the reinforced concrete structure of the I-80 interchage collapsed without any of the physical trauma of a 500000 lb airline travaling at high speed. It collapsed because its structure was weakend by heat of the fire raging underneath it. Much like the WTC.

You're not really that far off. If larger sections of I-80 had simultaneously collapsed... for instance spanning from S.F. to - say - *Chicago*.... then the magnitude of this collapse would be more comparable to the WTC scenario.

Sure. If I-80 had been built vertically in the sky so that lower parts hold up the higher parts.

You know, i must say... While i do believe the buildings came down in some form of controlled demo, and i dont think the bridge does represent a comparable example of structural failure... i absolutely agree with what FredT is trying to do.

He stated something along the lines that maybe the conspiracy was just letting it happen.

I think it is important, if we are ever to move this thing along, that we get other americans to accept this viewpoint. Maybe they let it happen. This is the first, and most important step.

Kennel, not only did you not respond to the majority of my points, your one response about concrete dust fails to take into account the micronization impossible through kinetic collapse. Please tell me you are aware of this issue?

FredT, you lack any real revelance of this being anything in accord with what happened with the World Trade Centers. Even that which is skeptical of the conspiracies can find atleast 1 or 2 things wrong with the official story.

That is, if you are looking for things to make sense with reality.

mbkennel...holmes, even if 300 foot sections of the WTC towers had been dropped from the OZONE LAYER onto their undamaged bases, the resulting carnage would have been minute compared to the destructive force(s) unleashed on 9/11.

In addition, you must be amazed by the fact that kerosene heaters, oil furnaces, combustion engines, and NASA rockets are constantly subjected to such high temperatures. I try not think about it myself, since my job requires that I tempt fate daily in those non-heat resistant steel buildings.

when i first say that story , the very first thing i thought was ,
" thank god , another blow to the truther's story " .
now maybe this will open some eye's to the fact that @ 90% of the
offical story is true . but i doubt it . has anyone seen the thread that's taken ignorance to a whole new leverl ? seems that a "nuke" is now to blame .
im sorry but that's just laughable .
what won't they think of next ?

Originally posted by FredT

Notice the lower bridged road didn't pancake down to the ground. Just something to think about.

Originally posted by Griff
Notice the lower bridged road didn't pancake down to the ground. Just something to think about.

And if you remember the WTC towers on 9/11 -- The planes didn't hit the buildings on the 109th floor. If they had, I doubt WTC 1,2 would have collapsed.

You throw 100,000 tons on top of that overpass, during the fire-- I bet it would collapse to the ground. (that is speculation)

The fact is that fire, derived from fuel, caused steel and concrete support structures to fail on that overpass.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Collapse accelerates because of gravitational acceleration, of course. WTC was extremely tall.

Utter garbage! Gravitational acceleration?

You need to re-think what you're saying and please consider RESISTANCE in your analysis. You seem to ignore the fact that when met by resistance an object is going to slow down, not speed-up, no matter how big it is.
If gravity could overcome the resistance of all that steel it would never have stood in the first place.
The weight of 30 floors is not going to crush 80 floors to the ground, ever, period!

I'm not even going to bother with your other points until you go learn some basic physics.

[edit on 29/4/2007 by ANOK]

Sorry I have been out on transport and unable to comment (I will do so tommorow)

One thing I wanted to point out was if you look at the pictures, the basic support structure of the overpasses is steel. So while argee that the burning jet fuel might not be able to melt the steel in both WTC and this overpass, please explain the failure we see here? The steel softened, and failed.

SteveR in regards to the WTC being designed with multiple impacts in mind in seeing interviews with the main designer of the WTC, he indicated the building was designed for the biggest civilian aircraft at the time the Boeing 707. The aircraft was far lighter than the 767 that hit the tower (707 empty weight 103145 , 767 empty weight 164800) and evisioned the scenario of a plane lost in the fog traveling at low speeds not on a suicide run.

Originally posted by FredT
One thing I wanted to point out was if you look at the pictures, the basic support structure of the overpasses is steel. So while argee that the burning jet fuel might not be able to melt the steel in both WTC and this overpass, please explain the failure we see here? The steel softened, and failed.

Here allow me.

Tanker truck fire didn't melt steel or collapse bridge.

More here...

www.debunking911.com...

No comparison...

- The small amount of steel (comparatively) does not make for much of a heat sink, unlike the towers which were enormous heat sinks.

- The bridge fire was "focused" on a small area, probably right under the WEAKEND beam.

- It was "open air" and had plenty of O to burn at the highest possible temps.

- It does not appear that most of the fuel at the bridge burst into a HUGE fireball that almost immediately burned it all off as we saw at WTC 1 and 2.

- If the damaged tanker was still holding the fuel, it would have burned many times linger than the planes that exploded instantly spilling/burning the fuel.

- the above stated "speed of impact" argument blows... since the planes hit going so fast, the fuel would have dispersed/atomized/"spread out" FAR more quickly than a "damaged" fuel tank. I am sure we can agree that the speed of the planes would ahve spread the fires further wand there would have been a more disperse yet less intense fire.

- there is no fireproofing on highway bridges as far as I know.

- There are no fire suppression systems on highway bridges as far as I know.

How many hours did it burn for? Anyone?

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Pootie]

TEMPS are all wrong for comparison...

Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said./

The NIST, FEMA, PM, NOVA NEVER reported temps ANYWHERE NEAR 2,750F as far as I have read. 482F is what the NIST said from their testing...

NIST examined more than 170 areas on the steel recovered from the Twin Towers for evidence of fire exposure (NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli).Only three of these 170 locations indicated temperatures above 250 C, and according to NIST, one of these three locations appeared to have experienced temperatures above 250 C after the collapse. According to NIST (wtc.nist.gov...), the steel was selected specifically from the areas that experienced fire and impact damage, included all 14 grades of steel used for the exterior columns and two grades of steel used for 99% of the core columns, and was adequate for estimating the maximum temperature reached by the steel.