The $2,000$ 9/11 Challenge

In case you didn't understand my last post, in the case of destruction of one of the world's tallest building complexes.......

SCALE MATTERS. If you don't have a supercomputer or the means to recreate scale conditions with a margin of error that is within believable limits, this is worthless.

I just ran out of Bicycle playing cards...am heading out to Eckerd for buy a few more packs and get change for a $5 in quarters.

Give me a couple days, I'm gonna nail this sucker!

Some people really do not think things through with the co-operation of their grey matter do they? I think this needs drop kicking to BTS.

Ooooh, just had an idea - why dont we use air-o-fix models to re-inact the jet liners, that should prove a lot........

Hey perhaps we could prove the meteor theory for the exticntion of the dinasours by dropping big rocks near Crocadiles?

Originally posted by newtron25
SCALE MATTERS. If you don't have a supercomputer or the means to recreate scale conditions with a margin of error that is within believable limits, this is worthless.

This is why any scaled reproduction will not give you any indication. Modulus of inertia doesn't scale down linearly with mass. You need both to be scaled the same to do a comparison.

I got no interest in your competition really, but you say a building can't pancake at all...

en.wikipedia.org...

Around 6:05 p.m., the roof gave way, and the air conditioning unit crashed through into the already-overloaded fifth floor (Seconds From Disaster indicates that the fifth floor slab and roof were the first to collapse, causing the air conditioning units to fall through the structure). The main columns, weakened to allow the insertion of the escalators, collapsed in turn, and the building's south wing pancaked into the basement. Within 20 seconds, all of the building's columns gave way, trapping more than 1500 people and killing 50

I wish there was a video on YouTube because I saw the footage on the BBC show and it was very much like Tower 7. Here's the results...

No one said "pancaking" (as opposed to the "waffling" or "flap-jacking" or the "biscuiting"...but I digress) can actually occur.

We're just saying you can't show that it actually happened by use of a crude model. And I personally am saying that in the case of the WTC 1 & 2, if you were to look at the probability of those two collapses, consider the normal or natural course of events if everything DID happen without human intervention (beyond the planes crashing into them), then the numbers might show that some form of secondary and substantial destruction to neighboring structures would have to happen...somehow.

Am I the only fool alone in the universe who sees this? Are we to believe that in not just one case, but in TWO CASES, a plane hits a building 130 stories tall, then right after the first miracle of the immaculate pancake where the structure mercilessly falls straight to the ground, the second one does a "Anything you can do, I can do better" act on it and repeats the pattern. No other secondary structural damages to neighboring buildings including a notable hotel....that is except for WTC7....more than 2 blocks away. And it takes its bow like a ballerina in a dance recital just like the first two.

That is a pill the size of a basketball to swallow.

No way.

for the most part ive decided to become just an observer in this part of the forum but i have to ask cuz i may not be the only guy here who's confused...


........but are you saying that other than wtc7 NO other buildigns were heavily damaged?


not trying to be flippant or anything, just looking for clarification.

By damaged, I mean heavily damaged to the point of having to spend months in reconstruction or in having to call in fire department to put out fires.....................from what I know.

If you know more that I do, post it. My research can be spotty.

Even if there were some damage to the buildings surrounding the WTC 1,2 and even 7, what are the odds that the two towers did not collapse in a more (I know I'm gonna catch it for this one) uncontrolled fashion?

From anyone who has watched the videos, even taking into account building safety/structural design, is it possible to build structures that you know will collapase in that fashion after impact...everytime...and if so, what and expense!!!

IMHO, they didn't have the technology to do that back in 1976. And if they did, they didn't use it. The money was being paid out to the contractors supplying the concrete (yes, read "mafia").

Damage to Surrounding Buildings....

Just been there, and the fires were intense and fairly contained, according to Fig. 1-7.

Still, being the amateur that I am, I would have expected more damage, spreading further from such large buildings.

I had a go at a 3d simulation of the collapse and the only way i could simulate its likeness was using a series of timed particle bombs.

Originally posted by Damocles
if you can get it to cut and slide off (remember the 45 or so degree angle) that would shut a lot of people (myself included) up about the possibility of thermite being used.

I think those 45 degree cuts were made by cutting charges, not by thermite or thermate. Yes, there certainly was thermate used but there are over 200 different explosives used in controlled demolition.

There had to be other explosives used outside thermate. You will notice the large beams getting ejected from all around the towers. Thermate would not push out materials in this manner and neither would a gravity collapse.

Furthermore, bone fragments were found on nearby roof tops, thermate would burn bodies, not blow them into tiny fragments, other kinds of explosives would have to be used to push beams out sideways, cut perfect 45 degree angles in beams and blow people into tiny fragments found on roof tops.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
There had to be other explosives used outside thermate. You will notice the large beams getting ejected from all around the towers. Thermate would not push out materials in this manner and neither would a gravity collapse.

Furthermore, bone fragments were found on nearby roof tops, thermate would burn bodies, not blow them into tiny fragments, other kinds of explosives would have to be used to push beams out sideways, cut perfect 45 degree angles in beams and blow people into tiny fragments found on roof tops.

this is why the term aluminothermics is used... thermate is AN aluminothermic... it has a low brisance and does not explode. "Traditional thermite" has an even lower one. Now, shrink the Al particles to nano-size thus increasing the surface area 1000 fold and the reaction happens much, much faster and BOOM, you can use an aluminothermic as an explosive without the tell tale residues of RDx, C4, etc...

Pancake Collapse? What no Maple Syrup?

For me the only way you could prove he WTC thing is reconstruct it and I don't think $2000 dollars would do it?

I have heard and read much of the "evidence" (often by people making money out of book sells and DVDs may I add) for both sides. I was not there, what I saw was on screen. I saw a plane hit a tower (on tv) and heard that the other tower was hit. That's enough for me, its simpler than all the other codswallop.

Call me "sheeple" or whatever, I do not care, you 911 CTers give the powers that be too much credit for pulling it off the ways you say. Note I said "ways". That's one of the problems I have. The official version is just some blokes got lucky, that's it. The CTers have almost as many "theories" as there are believers that the powers that be are a bunch of murderers. I mean why complicate it with planes? Just blow the buildings and say some bombers got lucky, there wouldn't be much evidence to prove either way would there? I like it simple, nice simple, sheeple me.

As I see it, you people are the only people that care about it, you will go to your graves believing and trying to convince the world, the years that have passed ain't really changing world opinions that I can see. Be honest guys does the rest of the world really care?

I see parallels with Kennedy and the magic bullet...any nearer the truth?

IMHO the scale of the buildings and the physics involved would need to be replicated to prove one way or the other. We don't know what was going on inside the smoke etc...those that did are dead.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
I think those 45 degree cuts were made by cutting charges, not by thermite or thermate. Yes, there certainly was thermate used but there are over 200 different explosives used in controlled demolition.

There had to be other explosives used outside thermate. You will notice the large beams getting ejected from all around the towers. Thermate would not push out materials in this manner and neither would a gravity collapse.

Furthermore, bone fragments were found on nearby roof tops, thermate would burn bodies, not blow them into tiny fragments, other kinds of explosives would have to be used to push beams out sideways, cut perfect 45 degree angles in beams and blow people into tiny fragments found on roof tops.

well, im not going to pretend to know where you got 200 kinds from, id like to see your source material on that but i wont dispute it. ive always said my expertise was in military explosives and i wont pretend great knowledge beyond that.

if you or anyone else wants to know what i think of the idea of explosives being used in the towers you can go read my debate wtih whatukno here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

but i think you missed the actual point i was trying to make. many many many people disagree wtih the thermate/thermite theories because, well in my case anyway, we've never seen these thermate/ite cutter charges in action and id love to. and i really mean that without the sarcasm, id love to see one of these things work so the spirit of the suggestion i was making was that rather than spend money on something no one will see the benefit from anyway, why not spend the money to demonstrate how thermite (cuz im guessing thermate would be just a tad harder to get yer hands on) could cut the beams horizontally. now THAT would be a worthwhile investment if you had 2 grand to just throw away.

jsut an opinion. i still disagree on teh explosives beign used but you can read the why's of that in the debate thread.

lol though it is your money and you can spend it however makes you happy

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
well, im not going to pretend to know where you got 200 kinds from, id like to see your source material on that but i wont dispute it.

My source is a documentary called "Modern Marvell - Demolition" aired on the History channel and also in a documentary DVD called "What a Blast". I am sorry I can't post it here, it is 600 MB for each video file.

many many many people disagree wtih the thermate/thermite theories because, well in my case anyway, we've never seen these thermate/ite cutter charges in action and id love to.

Thermates were not used as cutter charges. Cutter charges and thermates perform two different tasks. I think there were both cutter charges AND thermates used, both did different jobs in the bringing down the towers.

But if no explosives and/or incendiary devised (such as thermate) were used then how do you explain the pools of molten steel found in the basements of all 3 buildings? Jet fuel doesn't melt steel, so how do you explain the pools molten steel found as late as 6 weeks later still simmering?

id love to see one of these things work

If you want to see thermite in action go here:
www.youtube.com...
You will notice that with these experiments thermite was used, thermate would be even more powerful and even more effective.




[edit on 1-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

[edit on 1-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

[edit on 1-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
I'm sure someone out there would be able to recreate the 9/11 collapse. But I know for sure that I couldn't . . . btw, it doesn't have to be actual jet fuel we throw onto it, right?

the NIST could not re-create the collapse without altering the condidtions to the point where they won't release the finding of the report.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I got no interest in your competition really, but you say a building can't pancake at all...

I never said a building can't pancake at all. I am saying that the ridiculous pancake theory is simply impossible. But hey, feel free to prove me wrong and yearn yourself a cool $2,000.oo in the process.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'll be darned, a pancake collapse did occur before 9/11!
Well, the two towers pancaked inside 10 seconds (that's one floor per 1/10th of a second) and the WTC7 pancaked inside 7 seconds (that's one floor per 1/7th of a second) and this 5 storey building also pancaked inside 20 seconds (that's one floor per 4 seconds).

Given that this pancake theory appears to be common, maybe you would have no problem in re-creating that said pancake collapse and make a 3 foot tower collapse inside 10 seconds?

Go ahead dude, go buy some LEGOs and see if you can make a 3 foot tower pancake down in 10 seconds.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Thermates were not used as cutter charges. Cutter charges and thermates perform two different tasks. I think there were both cutter charges AND thermates used, both did different jobs in the bringing down the towers.

yes, im aware of what HE cutter charges do, and i know what thermite does under "normal" circumstances

But if no explosives and/or incendiary devised (such as thermate) were used then how do you explain the pools of molten steel found in the basements of all 3 buildings? Jet fuel doesn't melt steel, so how do you explain the pools molten steel found as late as 6 weeks later still simmering?

and this is the point where i want to gouge my eyes out in these types of discussions.

why does everyone (this actually goes for both sides of the debate) feel that if i dont believe in a specific explaination for the events then by god i best have a plausalbe answer to replace it with? hey i can speculate all day and pull theories outta my tail all you want, but the bottom line is i have no bleedin idea. when did it become unacceptable to be able to say "hey, i can explain why this theory doesnt necessarily fit the problem but i really cant tell you exactly what DOES fit the problem"?

If you want to see thermite in action go here:
www.youtube.com...
You will notice that with these experiments thermite was used, thermate would be even more powerful and even more effective.

yeah yeah more youtube. the incidiary grenades we played with were much cooler mostly cuz it was live and in person not somoene elses video footage off the net, but you miss my point. ive seen thermite being used (in deference to pootie ill admit it was mite not mate ive never seen therMATE used) but the point i was making was that ive YET to see it cut horizontally through 2 inches of steel.

so, what i was suggesting when i made my first post in this thread, should you or anyone else for that matter try it, was to just keep working out the problem solving steps. if thermite cut the steel horizontally, then theres a good chance that thermate would also, only better. so, that keeps the theory within the realm of plausable. if thermite did NOT cut the steel then it would rule it out as plausable, now, thats not to say that if thermite couldnt do it that thermate couldnt but it would narrow the field down in the list of plausables in the search for truth right? i mean, that is what we're after, the truth right?


but really, click the link i put in my last post. a lot of my thoughts about explosives in the towers is in those posts for the debate.

and with that im going to remind myself why i wasnt going to get into any more 911 discussions.

sorry for interrupting with what i thought was a good suggestion. ignore me, nothing to see, ill be moving along now. have a good day.

this is ridiculus. for this experiment to be even the slightest bit accurate you would need to build scale models of both buildings using the exact materials and structure of the towers. You would then need to crash two scale airplanes filled with REAL jet fuel into them at the precise spot they were really hit and then see what happens. You would then have to do this test over and over. the more times you do it, the easier it is to calculate the average result.

Originally posted by lizziex3
this is ridiculus. for this experiment to be even the slightest bit accurate you would need to build scale models of both buildings using the exact materials and structure of the towers. You would then need to crash two scale airplanes filled with REAL jet fuel into them at the precise spot they were really hit and then see what happens. You would then have to do this test over and over. the more times you do it, the easier it is to calculate the average result.

I don't care how accurate your model would be and i don't care how often you repeat your experiment, you just won't succeed.

the simple fact is that the top portion of both buildings fell down "pancaking" all the floors under them at free fall speeds under 10 seconds for both buildings.

Had these two top portions been dropped out of the sky they would also have fallen for 10 seconds. The only way you can make that building collapse inside 10 seconds is if you make sure that all the floors and all the structures are demolished AHEAD of the falling debris.

If you can't re-create a pancake collapse with a 3 foot tall house of cards then you really should ask yourself how is can be done with millions of tons of structural steel and concrete.