Difficult Facts for 9/11 Skeptics to Deny

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm not arguing that a single explosion in the basement brought them down, but that's off-topic and I'd rather stay on topic.

Sometimes, detours must be made in order to get to your final destination. Read once again, as to why the WTC buildings collapse.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...


[edit on 18-6-2007 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by skyeagle409
Sometimes, detours must be made in order to get to your final destination.

Or to completely avoid what I'm posting.


My original point that I'm STILL trying to stress is that there is no scientific precedent whatsoever for a steel building failing from heat-related damages. The argument that one bomb in the basements couldn't bring them down, therefore its impossible to bring them down with bombs, is ridiculous and off-topic.

Originally posted by bsbray11
[
My original point that I'm STILL trying to stress is that there is no scientific precedent whatsoever for a steel building failing from heat-related damages.

The construction of the WTC buildings were unique to other steel buildings and left them vunerable to the kind of attack that took place on 9/11.

The argument that one bomb in the basements couldn't bring them down, therefore its impossible to bring them down with bombs, is ridiculous and off-topic.

When you take into consideration what is involved in the demolition a steel building the size of the WTC buildings, then you will see that it is not conceivable to bring down those buildings in such a way and not be noticed, but who is going to lobe tons of demolition equipment up multiple stories anyway?

Originally posted by skyeagle409
The construction of the WTC buildings were unique to other steel buildings and left them vunerable to the kind of attack that took place on 9/11.

Alright, explain how.

When you take into consideration what is involved in the demolition a steel building the size of the WTC buildings, then you will see that it is not conceivable to bring down those buildings in such a way and not be noticed, but who is going to lobe tons of demolition equipment up multiple stories anyway?

I don't think they were conventional demolitions but all I'm really concerned with is how they could have possibly collapsed by themselves as observed.

Originally posted by skyeagle409
And, here is what's involved in trying to bring down a steel-contructed building.

Demolishing A Steel Building

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

These days, blasters often use an electrical detonator instead of a traditional fuse. An electrical detonator fuse, called a lead line, is just a long length of electrical wire. At the detonator end, the wire is surrounded by a layer of explosive material. This detonator is attached directly to the primer charge affixed to the main explosives. When you send current through the wire (by hooking it up to a battery, for example), electrical resistance causes the wire to heat up. This heat ignites the flammable substance on the detonator end, which in turn sets off the primer charge, which triggers the main explosives.

To control the explosion sequence, blasters configure the blast caps with simple delay mechanisms, sections of slow-burning material positioned between the fuse and the primer charge. By using a longer or shorter length of delay material, the blasters can adjust how long it takes each explosive to go off. The length of the fuse itself is also a factor, since it will take much longer for the charge to move down a longer fuse than a shorter one. Using these timing devices, the blasters precisely dictate the order of the explosions.

Blasters determine how much explosive material to use based largely on their own experience and the information provided by the architects and engineers who originally built the building. But most of the time, they won't rely on this data alone. To make sure they don't overload or under-load the support structure, the blasters perform a test blast on a few of the columns, which they wrap in a shield for safety. The blasters try out varying degrees of explosive material, and based on the effectiveness of each explosion, they determine the minimum explosive charge needed to demolish the columns. By using only the necessary amount of explosive material, the blasters minimize flying debris, reducing the likelihood of damaging nearby structures.

science.howstuffworks.com...

And you believe that plane damage/fire and gravity can do the exact same thing? Funny.

Originally posted by skyeagle409
Those buildings were not subjected to the kind of trama inflicted upon the WTC buildings. Also, explosives were unable to bring down one of the WTC buildings back in 1993.


[edit on 18-6-2007 by skyeagle409]

And again. Yet, you believe plane damage/fire and gravity can?

Originally posted by Griff
And you believe that plane damage/fire and gravity can do the exact same thing? Funny.

Griff,

Are you aware of any studies that might have been done that would show the amount of explosive energy needed to bring down the WTC towers in a controlled demolition?

And conversely are the any studies that show the amount of explosive energy from the impact and explosions from the planes of the WTC towers?

And if not would it be possible to do such a comparative study?

You would only be able to compare total energy, but that's not enough. The energy from the plane impacts was dissipated towards a number of things, whereas demolition charges would be specifically directed to dissipate their energy in cutting steel members or etc.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You would only be able to compare total energy, but that's not enough. The energy from the plane impacts was dissipated towards a number of things, whereas demolition charges would be specifically directed to dissipate their energy in cutting steel members or etc.

Thanks BSB

Being a non engineer myself, I thought that for example if it took 100 tons of tnt equivalent to bring down the wtc towers in a controlled demolition and the plane impact and resulting explosions only produced 70 tons of tnt equivalent then that would mean more energy was needed to bring down the towers than was generated from the plane impact and explosion.

You could do a variation of that as a proof of additional energy (ie explosives), and some people have done estimations. You have to include the potential/kinetic energy of the falling mass of the upper floors, plus a small amount of each additional floor, which dwarves the energy of the plane impacts, and then subtract from that amount the energy it would require to buckle columns, eject mass laterally, destroy concrete, etc., and after you subtract all of those things, for the "official story" to be true, the energy left has to be positive (if the energy subtracted takes the potential energy of the floors below 0 then there was additional energy from some other source in the system accounting for our observations), and the collapse times while exerting the energy has to match with the observed collapse times.

Papers like Bazant et. al.'s latest paper try to prove that the collapses would have been possible under the potential energy of the upper floors alone, but so far they haven't checked the collapse times of their models or come up with an accurate list of energy sinks, like destroying the concrete and buckling columns and etc. while being able to complete a collapse.

Originally posted by Griff
And you believe that plane damage/fire and gravity can do the exact same thing? Funny.

Exactly!!

After all, fire from a simple fuel truck brought down the concrete/steel overpass in Oakland recently and you only have to look at the thousands of pounds of aluminum, jet fuel, hydralic fluids, and other flammable objects within the buildings, and judging from the airflow as indicated by the smoke plumes, the fire was air-fed as well.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Alright, explain how.

The details are located in the building diagram I posted earlier.

I don't think they were conventional demolitions but all I'm really concerned with is how they could have possibly collapsed by themselves as observed.

It is no problem if the central load-bearing structure is weakened by heat. Examine the diagram carefully to see how the buildings collapsed.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

Look at this photo. Do you think that any rational person is going to carry demolition equpment all the way up to the upper-most levels of those buildings when it is more practical to place explosives near the base of the buildings? What are the chances of the pilots hitting the exact location if explosives were placed at a certain floor level?




[edit on 18-6-2007 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Being a non engineer myself, I thought that for example if it took 100 tons of tnt equivalent to bring down the wtc towers in a controlled demolition and the plane impact and resulting explosions only produced 70 tons of tnt equivalent then that would mean more energy was needed to bring down the towers than was generated from the plane impact and explosion.

Actually, look here to see how a fuel-fed fire brought down a steel/concrete structure with no problem.

www.nytimes.com...

NOTE: The overpass didn't fall over to the right or left, it fell straight down, which is exactly what happened with the WTC buildings.


In the fuel-fed 1982 Caldecott Tunnel fire only a few miles away, over 600 feet of steel plates had to be replaced because they bunkled under the heat of the fire.


[edit on 18-6-2007 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by bsbray11

I don't think they were conventional demolitions but all I'm really concerned with is how they could have possibly collapsed by themselves as observed.

The load-bearing structures can only carry so much weight and weakened by heat, there is gong to be a pancake-effect as one floor section collapses upon the lower floor and so on.

Originally posted by skyeagle409

Actually, look here to see how a fuel-fed fire brought down a steel/concrete structure with no problem.

Apples to orange's comparison. No where do you see pulverised concrete or blacktop, the structure is still intact for the most part, it just collapsed as opposed to the WTC towers that had micro particles, ejected material hundreds of yards and had molten steel in the basement weeks after the incident.

For the WTC towers to compare it would have toppled over in larger pieces with several bottom floors still intact. In other words nothing like what happened on 9-11

Originally posted by skyeagle409
The details are located in the building diagram I posted earlier.

I asked you to explain why those buildings were predispositioned for failure. It is not an unusual design. The First Interstate Bank had an almost identical design and suffered major fire for over twice as long without problems, and its steel was much smaller.

It is no problem if the central load-bearing structure is weakened by heat.

Funny, this is the first thing I remember responding to you about. There wasn't enough heat or time to do that. There's no precedent, no evidence, all real science points to the contrary. And I'm talking lab studies, not web pages. Sorry. You keep saying it but it isn't getting any more true.

Originally posted by skyeagle409
The load-bearing structures can only carry so much weight and weakened by heat, there is gong to be a pancake-effect as one floor section collapses upon the lower floor and so on.

Read there NIST report they even say there was no pancake collapse. It was a universal simultaneous collapse.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I asked you to explain why those buildings were predispositioned for failure. It is not an unusual design.

Check the diagram again. There was no way the building was going to topple over and there was more than enough heat to anneal the steel structure.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Read there NIST report they even say there was no pancake collapse. It was a universal simultaneous collapse.

It is obvious in the videos there were pancake effects, and in the same manner as the overpass collapse upon the lower section, which was also weakened by heat.

"Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire"

World Trade Center construction manager

Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by skyeagle409
It is obvious in the videos there were pancake effects, and in the same manner as the overpass collapse upon the lower section, which was also weakened by heat.

No official report claims a pancake collapse so I guess your on your own with the theory.


[edit on 18-6-2007 by etshrtslr]