Difficult Facts for 9/11 Skeptics to Deny

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

Believe me, I know exactly what I am talking about and that is based on my own experience in regards to aircraft accidents. The plumes of both buildings are clear indications of compression (pancake effect). Now this;

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

* the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by skyeagle409
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.

Nice picture. Also notice that the roadway that was underneath the collapsed roadway didn't collapse. Unlike what suppossedly happened at the trade center. Nice try though.

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.

I've never disputed steel weakening, buckling, etc. from fire. What I do dispute is a total global collapse from fire. Just not possible IMO.

[edit on 6/19/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
Nice picture. Also notice that the roadway that was underneath the collapsed roadway didn't collapse. Unlike what suppossedly happened at the trade center. Nice try though.

Had it been constructed like the WTC buildings, it would have, but it also dispells the myth that carbon fuels cannot produce enough heat to drop steel structures.

I've never disputed steel weakening, buckling, etc. from fire. What I do dispute is a total global collapse from fire. Just not possible IMO.

The videos pretty much summed it up that the collapses began at the top levels and work its way down from where the aircraft struck the buildings. Due to its construction, the only way the buildings could have come down during the fire was straight down, and that was in regards to the design of the WTC buildings.

The lower floors just couldn't handle the added weight and the rest is history.

Due to its unique design, the only way the WTC buildings were going to go down due to weakening of its central core structure by heat, was straight down, like sliding down a pole with a number of other people holding unto that same pole. View the pole as the central core of the WTC buildings.

The Person at the top who initiates the slide is going to create a "pancake effect" on others below him.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed
A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

World Trade Center tower construction

In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure.


Bearing walls and Open floor design

"When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall."

This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses.

The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure."

vincentdunn.com...


[edit on 19-6-2007 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by skyeagle409
Had it been constructed like the WTC buildings, it would have,

Can you prove this with structural calculations and/or computer models? Because, so far, we have reports of studies which say otherwise. BTW, this report was pre-9/11 so there wasn't any bias involved. If you want the pdf, I can give it to you or you can google it. Let me know if you are interested in the truth.

but it also dispells the myth that carbon fuels cannot produce enough heat to drop steel structures.

Define the structure. A structure like a steel bridge or a structure like a steel framework. Two totally diffferent structures.

The videos pretty much summed it up that the collapses began at the top levels and work its way down from where the aircraft struck the buildings. Due to its construction, the only way the buildings could have come down during the fire was straight down, and that was in regards to the design of the WTC buildings.

Not really. Gravity dictacts that it will go straight down. What gets in the way are those pesky columns everyone wants to ignore. BTW, if it were a CD, where do you think the outside structure would collapse? Even if there was a bomb that took out the core columns, the outer shell would fail at the impact zones. That has not been disputed by anyone as far as I am aware.

The lower floors just couldn't handle the added weight and the rest is history.

You sound like NIST. "Global collapse was inevitable" but don't back anything up with real science.

Originally posted by skyeagle409
Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed
A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

And why should I read further?

[edit on 6/19/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
Can you prove this with structural calculations and/or computer models?

I wouldn't need a computer model. Just good old fashion basics on structural technology.

Because, so far, we have reports of studies which say otherwise. BTW, this report was pre-9/11 so there wasn't any bias involved. If you want the pdf, I can give it to you or you can google it. Let me know if you are interested in the truth.

According to structural engineers, the only way the WTC buildings could have come down, was straight down. That is why I posted their statements.

Define the structure. A structure like a steel bridge or a structure like a steel framework. Two totally diffferent structures.

Steel structure, whether it is a bridge or a building, have primary structural supports and their failure can result in total collapse of that particular structure.

Not really. Gravity dictacts that it will go straight down. What gets in the way are those pesky columns everyone wants to ignore. BTW, if it were a CD, where do you think the outside structure would collapse? Even if there was a bomb that took out the core columns, the outer shell would fail at the impact zones. That has not been disputed by anyone as far as I am aware.

Like a person at the top of a pole, the central steet core supports the gravity loads and if the core goes, so does the rest of the building and with a central core failure, the only way the building to gong to go, is straight down because the lower section of the core remains undamaged, which will not allow the building to fall off to the side.

You sound like NIST. "Global collapse was inevitable" but don't back anything up with real science.

Real science? With a central core failure, there was no other way the buildings were going to come down other than they way it did.


[edit on 19-6-2007 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by Griff

And why should I read further?

Why shouldn't you? There's much to learn.

Originally posted by skyeagle409
Real science? With a central core failure, there was no other way the buildings were going to come down other than they way it did.

Do you realize we are arguing the same point? If it was a CD, they would have taken out the core. It would have failed in the exact same way it did. You just think the planes and fire were enough to take the core out. I don't. In the end though, the result is the same.

Originally posted by skyeagle409
Why shouldn't you? There's much to learn.

Yes there is. Structural engineers that studied the effects of steel framework (multi story even) in fire. Pre-9/11. I'd take their word over a fire chief.

guardian.150m.com...

www.civ.ed.ac.uk...



[edit on 6/19/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
[Do you realize we are arguing the same point? If it was a CD, they would have taken out the core. It would have failed in the exact same way it did. You just think the planes and fire were enough to take the core out. I don't. In the end though, the result is the same.

How safe are our skyscrapers?: The World Trade Center collapse

Some 60 tons or more of jet fuel could have easily caused sustained high temperatures of 1,500 F and higher.

Under these conditions, structural steel looses rigidity and strength. The resulting failure of the 2-3 floor system at the site of impact sent the 30 to 25 floors above free-falling onto the 80 to 85 floor structure below. The enormous energy released by this collapse was too large to be absorbed by the structure below.

That impact may have ultimately caused the explosive buckling, floor after floor, of the WTC towers. Similar to a car crash in a wall, the towers crashed into the ground with an almost free-fall velocity.

MIT
Oral Buyukozturk, Professor, Civil and Enviromental Engineering
Franz-Josef Ulm, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering

BBC News

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem.

The building was designed in 1968 and would have been one of the first to have a computer model designed for it.

"What you have to do is remove the parts of the model, the columns and so on, in the way you imagine that the plane removed them.

"We can even model the effect of the softening as the steel melts, and reduce its elastic properties to show the model falling down.

"We check it all against the video evidence."

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

"Professor John Knapton, Newcastle University".

Originally posted by skyeagle409
How safe are our skyscrapers?: The World Trade Center collapse

I'm glad you posted this.

Some 60 tons or more of jet fuel could have easily caused sustained high temperatures of 1,500 F and higher.

Could have, should have, would have. Give me proof this was possible when NIST even says the fuel burned off in ten minutes.

Under these conditions, structural steel looses rigidity and strength.

True. Notice the use of the word rigidity. They even claim that the steel would have lost rigidity. Meaning it became more ductile. More on that later.

The resulting failure of the 2-3 floor system at the site of impact sent the 30 to 25 floors above free-falling onto the 80 to 85 floor structure below. The enormous energy released by this collapse was too large to be absorbed by the structure below.

Wrong. They even said it themselves. The steel looses rigidity. The steel wouldn't have "free-fallen" at all. Did you know that a buckled column still gives resistance? Not as much but some. So, the free-fall assumption is totally wrong here.

That impact may have ultimately caused the explosive buckling, floor after floor, of the WTC towers. Similar to a car crash in a wall, the towers crashed into the ground with an almost free-fall velocity.

Again, may have, coulda, shoulda, woulda. Give me some freeking numbers MIT. Don't just give me your opinion. BACK IT UP. That's a rant to MIT, NIST etc. that don't back up their theories like a good scientist does.

MIT
Oral Buyukozturk, Professor, Civil and Enviromental Engineering
Franz-Josef Ulm, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering

Now are we ready to discuss the tests I posted?

Originally posted by skyeagle409

BBC News

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem.

The building was designed in 1968 and would have been one of the first to have a computer model designed for it.

"What you have to do is remove the parts of the model, the columns and so on, in the way you imagine that the plane removed them.

"We can even model the effect of the softening as the steel melts, and reduce its elastic properties to show the model falling down.

"We check it all against the video evidence."

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

"Professor John Knapton, Newcastle University".

I'd like to see the computer models for this. Can you link to them? I have SAP2000 if that helps. Thanks.

Ignorance still runs high on the 9/11 forum.

Points which have been successfully debated are being brought back up. (I-beams cut), valid points are presented and are ignored because it does not 'fit' with a certian belief.

Regardless of any information with supports the 'official' report - it will always be treated as wrong due to source, person involved, lack of Government conspiracy.

The 9/11 forum has turned into a big pile of smelly ----

At least 'new' posters should be required to review all previous 9/11 threads so 'old' issues which have already been debunked/explained are not revisited and wasting time when there are still other questions which haven't been answered yet.

Originally posted by Griff
Could have, should have, would have. Give me proof this was possible when NIST even says the fuel burned off in ten minutes.

Perhaps, this should provide some insight.

World Trade Center Slide Show Investigation Of The Collapse

www.pbs.org...


[edit on 19-6-2007 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by skyeagle409
Perhaps, this should provide some insight.

World Trade Center Slide Show Investigation Of The Collapse

www.pbs.org...

That's all and good for the temps of the fires. How about the temps of the steel? Do you know that only one piece of steel tested showed temperatures exceeding 250C? So, again, I ask to prove to me the steel got that hot in 45 minutes. You need a thermodynamicist for this.

BTW, I couldn't listen to what he was saying (no sound), so I could have missed it.

I haven't seen any math models presented which account for this enormous amount of energy either....


Those two big long spikes are an enormous amount of energy being released explosively, and prior to the debris hitting the ground. Spikes that large and sudden would seem to me to be consistent with underground explosions, I'm a regular joe, but it also seemed that way to the guys who recorded the data at the time.

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion... The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."
-Lerner-Lam

Now can anybody show any kind of math that takes into account all of the factors rather than just what NIST was handed and predisposed to consider? What about that seismic energy? What about that pulverized concrete? It seems to me that we're talking about a hell of alot more energy than what is produced just from collapsing concrete and steel.
Hmmm explosives release that kind of energy though.

Originally posted by Griff
That's all and good for the temps of the fires. How about the temps of the steel? Do you know that only one piece of steel tested showed temperatures exceeding 250C? So, again, I ask to prove to me the steel got that hot in 45 minutes. You need a thermodynamicist for this.

If there was molten metal flowing out of the buildings, then we know at least the temperature was well over 1200 degrees F.

Originally posted by skyeagle409
If there was molten metal flowing out of the buildings, then we know at least the temperature was well over 1200 degrees F.

Depending on what metal it was. What temperature does nickle cadmium melt? I don't know. I'm not even sure what metals are in UPS batery systems. But, I doubt they have high melting points.

The fires could have been hot, but it doesn't mean that those huge heat sinks (columns) got anywhere near that temperature. Or else NIST would have found specimens that did.