"Truthers" and "Trusters" This may change everything!

reply to post by getreadyalready


I can easily refute your post with a video. The concept of "torque" and an impression of the rotating and toppling suggested in your post is not supported by real physics:

Yes. Even ignoring the "Free Fall" aspect. Watch the videos, one side of the top section clearly starts to fall. If the building were providing even a minimal resistance at this point, the top section would have tumbled off to the side. It would have "rolled." If even one beam inside of that building was maintaining structural integrety due to better insulation, or farther proximity from the fire, or just mere luck, then that one beam would have torqued the top section, and it would have been evident in the fall.

If such a single beam had existed, the pancake effect would have been ineffective, because all that force would have slid and tumbled away from that beam, and that section of building would have had a combination of more resistance + less force = more of that section intact.

So, are you pushing the idea that every single beam and cement wall in that building gave way at precisely the same moment regardless of construction techniques or proximity to the fire?

Even if we entirely believe the OS, then we must admit that core of the supposed heat was where the fuel was burning most intently, and that from that section there would have been radiating spheres of heat in all directions. In that case, every single beam would have been at a different level of heat, and would have offered a different level of resistance, and the building would have fallen in more of a twisting and rolling fashion.

Now, before we even get to that point of the discussion, we first have to believe that a Diesel fire, in an extremely damped situation, burning very inefficiently would have enough heat to liquefy even one piece of steel. There just isn't any science to even get that far, so how the building fell is really a moot point until we figure out how a Diesel Fire melted steel? If we give the OS a whole bunch of unlikely what-ifs regarding other fuel sources and wind-tunnel effects, and superheated drywall and paint, and stress fractures in the steel from the impact, even if we jump through all those unlikely hoops to an almost impossible conclusion, then we have to continue letting the OS speculate that all of the hundreds of beams were affected equally by this unlikely scenario?

It just isn't possible, and I don't know a single engineer or chemist that thinks it is possible, and I know a lot of engineers and chemists, lol!

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

This is not a courtroom. Bringing solid evidence is not possible without a new investigation. What we have here is theory. Which theory is more probable? Theory is based on facts that are observable. If you don't care to discuss these issues without hard evidence, why post? Why come to a website designed to discuss theories involved conspiracies if you intend to conclude lack of "solid evidence" means end of discussion?

I post because I hate to see otherwise intelligent people chasing their tails and falling for incorrect, purposefully misleading arguments. Especially when it involves misidentification of the proper enemy. Such opinions are not theories, they're hypotheses, and they're based on falsehoods, deceptive analyses and a complete lack of evidence in their favor. Any caring, rational person should inject a sane opinion in a thread full of deceiving nonsense.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Yes. Even ignoring the "Free Fall" aspect. Watch the videos, one side of the top section clearly starts to fall. If the building were providing even a minimal resistance at this point, the top section would have tumbled off to the side. It would have "rolled."

It didn't. Your hypothesis is wrong.

Now, before we even get to that point of the discussion, we first have to believe that a Diesel fire, in an extremely damped situation, burning very inefficiently would have enough heat to liquefy even one piece of steel.

Airplanes are not fueled by diesel fuel. Jet fuel is closer in composition to kerosene. Educate yourself more thoroughly.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
/pg2#pid8344023]post by traditionaldrummer[/url]

 

in a thread full of deceiving nonsense.

There you go again.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
/pg2#pid8344023]post by traditionaldrummer[/url]

 

in a thread full of deceiving nonsense.

There you go again.

This thread is indeed full of deceiving nonsense. You can chalk it up to name calling if you wish but ultimately it personifies your denial of the facts. The building was not in "free fall", airplanes are not fueled by diesel, etc. Shall we deny ignorance or not?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Actually kerosene and diesel are very similar. The difference in fuel is a moot point, but something you latch onto to criticize another poster. One has a higher flash point then the other. In regard to your other posts, you are not understanding the OP and various arguments that followed. I don't think anyone here is claiming the WTC 1 & 2 fell at free fall speed. The top portion of the building fell at free fall acceleration before slowing down upon meeting resistance. The video I posted from AE911 shows this.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Jet Fuel is closer to Kerosene, and Kerosene and Diesel are very similar, and both burn at very low temperatures compared to steel. Diesel fuel is actually the hotter of the two, so Kerosene supports my point better, but people are not as familiar with it.

So, looking at the information below, and remembering that there is not sufficient airflow in this fire to get to ideal temperatures, and remembering that there are numerous walls and insulating factors between the fires and the steel, and remembering that the building is designed with certain "worst-case scenario" safety factors involved to withstand an impact, or a high wind, or a deep freeze, or an intense fire, or an earthquake, and remembering that the radiating heat would be absorbed / reflected differently as it encountered each layer of insulating material in a number of directions and distances, how can anyone conclude that hundreds of steel beams melted and collapsed simultaneously from a kerosene fire?

Melting Temperature of Steel 1100-1600 deg. Cast Iron 1200-1350 deg. Pure Iron 1535 deg.

Ignition Temperature of Kerosene 229 deg. Diesel 399 deg. Acetone 465 deg. Asphault 538 deg.

At 550 degrees, the steel loses approx. 50% of structural integrity. Wall Masonry collapses at 760 deg. (Remember Kerosene burns at 229 deg.)

www.tcforensic.com.au...

[edit on 16-3-2010 by getreadyalready]

reply to post by getreadyalready

how can anyone conclude that hundreds of steel beams melted and collapsed simultaneously from a kerosene fire?

No one can. So that is why no one did. End of mystery.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Do you know if concrete is surrounding a piece of steel if steel can melt beneath the concrete without the concrete being melted first?

reply to post by ExPostFacto


We know about the fire ratings of concrete block walls, and it would be approximately 4 hours before dangerous heat would transfer to the far side. It would surely be longer than that for sufficient heat to melt steel would transfer! PreCast or Pre-stressed Concrete walls have even higher ratings.

www.masonrybc.org...

The fire resistance ratings of masonry walls are determined by heat
transmission measured by temperature rise on the cold side. A masonry
wall will not let flames or smoke through even after the temperature of
the wall on the cold side has risen above required levels. Few walls fail
due to load during the fire test, during cooling under the fire hose, or
during the double load test that follows.

Read "Double Load" test that follows on a second or subsequent fire after surviving an initial fire and a cold blast from a fire hose.

The fire rating is a little lower on that page linked.

Architects and Engineers design in a lot of redundant safety factors, so I would guess that even if the fire had raged for a full day, and even if several beams finally reached 50% structural integrity, that the building would still stand. I would also remind us that there is no way a damped kerosene fire gets us to that point in any amount of time, but especially in the short time span of 9/11.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Good that is what I thought. Concrete is not what is holding up the building it is the steel beneath. So in essence, the concrete is an insulator. Thank you for providing that data.

reply to post by getreadyalready

The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) tested and reported
fire resistance ratings of load bearing steel stud walls with
gypsum wallboard protection (with or without cavity insulation) in
the early 1980s. The study was conducted to develop an
analytical method making it possible to predict the structural
behavior of cold-formed steel framing in load-bearing walls under
the conditions in the ASTM E119 Standard Fire Test. As a result,
fire-resistant ratings, construction and material details are
provided in UL Fire Resistance Directory as Design U425.

www.bfrl.nist.gov...

As noted previously, large buildings located in urban areas could be classified in higher performance groups than similar buildings located in less concentrated areas, thus justifying higher fire resistances for buildings located in concentrated urban areas. While the severity of
the fires in such similar buildings would be expected to be similar regardless of the building location, the potential consequences of building collapse would be different based on the building location. Consequently, it would be reasonable to require a higher level of fire resistance for buildings located in urban areas than for similar buildings in isolated locations.

It is logical to conclude that the largest building in Manhatten would have been constructed to much higher standards than an average high-rise, and that even an average high-rise is engineered to withstand several hours of intense fire engulfing the structure. A fire confined to a few floors and one corner of the building would not have been cause for collapse concern.

This is further evidenced by the Firefighters rushing into the building without concern of collapse!

www.steel.org.../CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13081

Here is some interesting testing for Steel structures in PetroChemical plants where intense fires have the added heat of petrochemicals. 2000 degrees within 5 minutes is tested and the steel maintains structural integrity!

The temperature of the fire exposure in which rapid temperature rise ratings are established reaches 2000°F within the first 5 minutes of the fire exposure test.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by getreadyalready]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jthomas

"As they collapse" is a separate subject altogether. In controlled demolitions, the goal is to collapse a structure so that the END result is a collapse which is contained so as to not damage adjacent structures. The actual collapse itself need not be "symmetrical" as we see in the majority of the time in videos of parts of buildings deliberately made to fall inward. Gravity is the main component of all demolitions. So "symmetry", in and of itself, is not evidence of controlled demolition.

Hmmm the END result has nothing to do with the symmetry of the collapses.

I never said it did. You misread my statement

Please read through my post again, symmetry is impossible from a chaotic natural collapse, again due to uncontrolled resistance, which should have created asymmetry in the collapse as gravity is not a force that can overcome resistance.

That's a claim for which I see no evidence provided. Also, you haven't addressed the fact of what happens when there is insufficient resistance to stop the collapse as was true for WTC 1 and 2.

If it could the buildings would never have stood under their own weight in the first place.

Of course they could stand. The buildings are designed to support their own static load. The subject matter is not static loads but dynamic loads which you are not addressing.

What you are claiming is that contrary to controlled demolitions, the walls were intended to be explosively shot outward, in other words, an extra expenditure of energy other than what controlled demolitions are meant to do: use gravity to collapse a structure.

It's hard to understand what you're trying to say here. What walls were intended to be shot outwards? Look, again you are trying to compare to a convention controlled demolition, it wasn't.

That's what I'm saying. If it WAS a demolition, for which I see no evidence, it was not a "conventional" controlled demolition by any standard.

'Controlled demolition' does not mean it had to have been done in the most common conventional way that YOU know of.

Of course. In this case, it would depend on what the "perps" intended.

I can bet there's ways you've never heard of e.g. They collapse tall towers sometimes by taking out sections of columns and filling them with wood, then set fire to the building, the wood burns and building collapses. Just an example to get your brain thinking out of the box.

I thought we were only discussing the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, not every possibility. So, you agree with me that if it was a demolition, then it was not a conventional demolition. And since everything I have read to date from the 9/11 Truth Movement is that there HAD to be explosives because "gravity alone could not have hurled thousands of tons of steel from WTC 1 that far into adjacent buildings" then we cannot ignore WHY.

For gravity to do it's work collapsing a building then the RESISTANCE has to be removed in some way. THAT is the issue we're concerned with, how did the resistance get removed from asymmetrical damage and fires on a few floors.

We disagree on "resistance." You claim that there was too much resistance from the lower structure to allow the top part to fall and collapse the whole building. Furthermore, you are stating that the "symmetrical collapse" and that "debris was ejected equally in all four directions" are definitive signatures of controlled demolition.

I am saying that the evidence and calculations show far more energy in the top sections than needed to overcome ANY resistance from the nature of the construction of the towers, where the floor connections to the outer walls and inner core were the weakest link and once severed, the floors no longer were supported. I am also saying that anyone competent enough to plant explosives would know how much explosive to use in the right places (the weakest links) BUT, according to the visual evidence, would have used far MORE explosives than necessary and that hurled massive pieces of WTC 1 and 2 into adjacent buildings, rather than just enough to separate the outer walls and let them fall down near the building.

In other words, a massive amount of energy was released from each collapse. If, as I think, all of the evidence from all sources shows the energy was far in excess of that needed to separate the floor connections, the lack of any meaningful resistance resulted in the rapid collapse AND the massive energy available to hurl the walls the distance they did.

You, on the other hand, are saying that explosives were needed because there was insufficient energy for total collapse to occur. But the result, according to that claim, is that far MORE explosives than needed to effect a collapse were used that hurled so much steel so far, more than would be needed to do the job that any professional would.

Presumably, then, the additional intention of the "perps" was to do as much damage external to the towers structure, to the other buildings, requiring much more explosives to "push" those walls out. Is that what you are suggesting? If not, where are your energy calculations showing THAT much explosives were needed?

No, tall skinny buildings CANNOT be imploded there is not enough room for the walls to fall into. THAT is why a conventional demo was not possible on the towers.

Why would the "perps" care HOW it fell IF the only objective was to collapse the building?

You're leading us to conclude that 1) the perps used far more explosives than needed to cause the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 through either incompetence or, 2) they actually intended to cause massive damage to other buildings through use of far greater quantities of explosives than actually needed.

WTC 7 btw caused minimal damage to other buildings, and was a conventional controlled demolition.

If WTC 7 was actually a demolition, it was not a conventional controlled demolition and damaged other buildings substantially by falling OUTSIDE its footprint.

What we are concerned with is the total energy available to collapse the structure. In the case of WTC 2, the top 25 stories fell one floor onto the bottom part of the structure, striking it at 9 meters/sec, hitting it with an equivalent of 8gs, eight times the force of gravity. So, all of a sudden the weakest links in the structure, the floor connections give way as the 25 stories falls on it moving 9 meters/sec.

No it didn't, not even close. See this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

See my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

All this is to say that symmetry in collapse is certainly NOT unexpected as the forces are overwhelming.

So say you. Now can you explain how this is possible please?
What forces were overwhelming? What force could possibly just overwhelm the resistance of thousands of tons of welded and bolted steel. Sorry but according the NIST report there was NO force acting on the collapses but gravity.

You forgot that the upper part of the tower was now a dynamic load. You can't leave that out nor the kinetic energy thus imparted.

The fires and damage had already done it's job and according to NIST an explanation of how the collapses became global and symmetrical was not necessary. In other words they did not give a complete explanation, they conveniently left out the most important part, the actual collapses.

That claim was addressed years ago and the answer is still the same. Once the causes of the collapse initiation were established from the evidence and studies one does not need to model the "actual" collapse to KNOW that there was nothing to stop it. What are the disciplines of physics, math, structural engineering, and architecture for other than know how to build structures and model what COULD happen under different scenarios? There was no point or need in modeling the "actual" collapse to know what caused it. There was even the computer power to do it. There is no mystery here.










[edit on 16-3-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Actually kerosene and diesel are very similar

No, diesel and kerosene are quite different. Nice try, you two. I, nor nobody else will fall for the "they are so close it's okay" routine. I work in an oil/fuel lab. Jets do not run on diesel fuel. Try being honest for a change.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I thought you were a drummer? Anyway, stating you work for the oil companies *scratches head* can you tell me what the difference between the two fuel types are? What are the differences?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No, diesel and kerosene are quite different. Nice try, you two. I, nor nobody else will fall for the "they are so close it's okay" routine. I work in an oil/fuel lab. Jets do not run on diesel fuel. Try being honest for a change.

Actually they are very similar, and you can use kerosene, and Jet A-1 and JP-5, in a diesel engine.

Kerosene is known as #1 Diesel. Regular consumer diesel is #2 Diesel, with a higher BTU rate than kerosene and more lubricant. If you use kerosene in a diesel engine you have to add lubricant, like you used to have to with 2 stroke motorcycles.

'Diesel' is any fuel that can be used in a diesel engine. The term 'diesel' refers to the engine cycle not the fuel used. The diesel cycle is one that uses heat from compression to ignite the fuel. Anyway I digress...

In common usage, the term "Diesel Fuel" is applied to several kerosine grades of fuel oil. But strictly speaking, the term "Diesel Fuel" refers not to the composition of the fuel, but rather to the fact that it can be used as a fuel in a Diesel cycle engine

www.globalsecurity.org...

Of course you know this working in a fuel lab? I used to work closely with one when I was a jet engine mech. Anyway, not sure if it helps, just adding more info and detail to the discussion...

reply to post by ANOK


Thank you Anok. And let's not forget that I was speaking both "generally" and "generously" when I used the term Diesel. I am well aware that it was Jet fuel, and that jet fuel is not exactly the Diesel that we use in our trucks . . . . . . but, for arguments sake, conventional Diesel burns a little hotter, and would be a "little" bit more likely to have caused the supposed damage, so I chose that one to refute. Kerosene seemed to easy, lol.

In reality Kerosene melting steel is impossible, and Diesel melting steel is equally impossible, and any liquid fossil fuel melting steel in such a short time frame is quite impossible, and even if petro-chemicals such as paints and resins and cleaners were used, it still would not have penetrated the several layers of insulation between the core of the heat and the steel structure.

And even given several hours of time, and ideal conditions, and ignoring the lack of airflow, and even if we ignore all those unlikelys, the fire would still not have been equally hot in all areas to cause a uniform, pancake collapse. And even if somehow the fire was equally hot in all directions, the steel does not react to heat in a uniform manner and some beams would have failed before others and it would have been apparent in the collapse, and portions of the building would have remained standing.

And, if we somehow conclude that all of those unlikely scenarios were overcome, we still have the NIST building standards and codes which demand that the building NOT collapse, even under intense fire engulfing entire floors, and we have rigorous testing proving so, and we have redundant retarding systems by encasing the steel in concrete, and spraying the steel with heat reflective chemicals, and we have stricter and stricter standards the bigger the building gets and the more populated the location is. So, we know that these towers were the tallest building in the most populated area in the country, and therefore they were held to the absolute highest standard of fire rating!

And, we know that the experts on the scene were firefighters. And we know that thousands of firefighters were unconcerned with a collapse, because they saw a relatively small fire from a known fuel source, and they "knew" that the building would NOT collapse under those circumstances.

How could jet fuel even be the problem??
Dident all of it burn up when the planes hit the towers?
I mean that sure was one huge fireball! All that fuel was gone the second the plane hit IMO.

Also, was jet fuel what brought down building 7? After all no airplane ever crashed into #7....

On top of that the general public seems to forgot that the Pentagon was also hit by an "airplane" that day also.
None of the people find it odd that there is no video footage of the pentagon event? other than one botched security video that dosent even show the airplane, just a white tip of the "airplane" aka "missile". Then skips a bunch of frames & BAM the explosion.

The Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, and you mean to tell me there is only ONE camera on that building that day? A parking lot security cam at that? Lol obviously the Feds confiscated all other footage of the pentagon incident, because they screwed the job up bad.
Really? a 757 left that little 70 foot wide hole in the pentagon? The same sized 757 that brought down 2 massive towers? Okay suuure.
The same sized 757 that crashed in the field in Pennsylvania & left that small 10 foot deep "Impact Crater" in the ground...?


^Do you REALLY think a passenger jet airliner crashed there^

Look at the people next to it for a size comparison

The focus is always about the towers, the fuel & burning temps & blah blah blah ect.. Never about WTC7, the crash in the field, or the Pentagon these 3 seperate events tell me no doubt about it 9/11 was a Gov false flag.
On 9/11 each year its always video & pictures in New York of where the towers used to be & old video we have seen so many times of the towers falling & the rubble ect.
Hardly anything else because the WTC towers were the only controlled demos they did a decent job at, so flood everyones minds with pics & vids of them falling over & over. People think alot less about the other events on that day.
Once they screwed up with United Airlines 93(I think the "plane" that "crashed" in Pennsylvania, was supposed to crash into WTC7, but something went wrong & they just Demo'd building 7 anyway hoping no-one would notice & that worked like a charm). Then they made their nice propaganda film about it, "United 93".

People think too much about the towers IMO
How quickly they collapsed says it all to me. Buildings that tall should have taken alot longer to fall, floor by floor.

The real terrorists are the ones in washington DC...
only a matter of time before they stage something else
they are running out of options too many americans have woken up to 9/11.
Wont suprise me when a lone nutjob that is a "9/11 truther" tries to kill obama or something, Alex Jones hit that one right on the head

All IMO

[edit on 17-3-2010 by sir_smoke_alot420]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by sir_smoke_alot420]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by sir_smoke_alot420]

Originally posted by sir_smoke_alot420

On top of that the general public seems to forgot that the Pentagon was also hit by an "airplane" that day also.

Some still claim no jet hit it.

None of the people find it odd that there is no video footage of the pentagon event?

No, not at all.

other than one botched security video that dosent even show the airplane, just a white tip of the "airplane" aka "missile". Then skips a bunch of frames & BAM the explosion.

It was fortuitous, given that the frame rate of the security cam, like most used at that time, only take a photo at 2 fps, and not a continuous 30fps.

The Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, and you mean to tell me there is only ONE camera on that building that day? A parking lot security cam at that? Lol

It's also one of the most secure so didn't need pedestrian security cameras like gas stations, etc., but it did have a few which weren't pointed in the right direction.

obviously the Feds confiscated all other footage of the pentagon incident, because they screwed the job up bad.

That's just a unfounded claim. Everyone who thinks about it realizes that videos are immaterial to knowing whether AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. Obviously, there is a massive amount of other lines of evidence, including the wreckage and eyewitness testimony, etc. that informs us of what happened.

I always found it strange that people think you need videos to know if an event happened or not. I wonder what Sherlock Holmes would say if someone told him that.