New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


I'm with you on this brother.

There's a couple of interviews with three of the participants from the BBC show and they tell the host how they edited out any of the good Q&As in the show. Then there's Charlie Sheens 20 minutes with the president.
My point was that they do a terrible job of answering questions straightforwardly. And often choose to answer rather irrelevant questions or condescend by giving childish explanations which involve the use of flour, eggs and Lego bricks.
I'm amazed at the general public's willingness to swallow this stuff and feel that satisfactory answers have been provided.

The reason for my "PS" was because I knew why.

Like I said, I'm with you.

Peace.

Inside job or not.......It is criminal negligence.......so how many of the people who are paid to protect the American people.....have been prosecuted or even sacked for not doing thier job ?.
If you do something about these people maybe you will find the truth.

If you heat steel it will bend or melt not break. To make steel brittle you have to heat to almost melting then cool it very rapidly.

I mean really? The official story has so many holes in it that they have to resort to this nonsense to explain things that the official story refuses to acknowledge? Unbelievable.

reply to post by ThaLoccster

After they spray water on it quickly explodes. Another video showed people dropping a crucible of molten aluminum in a bucket of water.

Try throwing a bucketful of water into the molten metal instead of the other way around.

The water flashes to steam and blows bits of molten metal all around the vicinity of the explosion. When you drop a slug of molten metal into a container of water, the water surrounds the metal and quenches it. when the water is dropped into molten metal the kinetic energy of the falling water drives into the mass of molten metal like a pocket, and the water flashing to steam is contained by metal, which is blown outwards by the steam explosion.

reply to post by spw184


I seem to be getting pretty good at killing threads of late, so what is one more.

I would think all those who are posting this same "scientist's anticle" should get together and do some serious research.

This could leave some bandwith for something a little more interesting.

I still cannot hypothesize how the temperatures could reach those necessary to remelt aluminum.

In the aluminum recycling business, they claim to require 750 degrees Centigrade which is around 1400 F.

The Jet Fuel burns at about a third of that at around 250 degrees Centigrade.


Ok add in the building materials, wood, nylon carpeting, fiberglass ceiling tiles etc.

It is stilll a stretch to come anywhere near the required temps necessary to melt even aluminum beverage cans...and not the considerably thicker pieces of aluminum in which to construct an aircraft AND to maintain this molten state.

Especially when the majority of the fuel was consumed upon impact. Where is the heat energy as in fuel going to come from ?

Additionally , the towers did not necessarily need to be wired.
The US military does possess radio activated detonators used on C4 in the military. With timers I might add.
A single radio signal could activate all of the timers set to their prescribed times.

What do you think the seal teams use for demolition purposes and permitting them time to escape the blast ?
Sticks of ACME dynamite, matches and a very long fuse ala Wylie Coyote ?

reply to post by spw184

Likes look a better explanation than the ones I see from the truther movement. It takes the evidence and gives us a plausible chain of events. As the linked article points to, the official explanation already can fully explain what happened. Here:

...................
Along similar lines, Zdenek Bazant, a professor of mechanical engineering at Northwestern University who was first to model how fires could have caused steel columns in the towers to buckle (leading to the buildings' collapses), thinks that the official explanation suffices. "I've explained it in six papers in leading journals," Bazant said. In his opinion, all factors related to the collapse have been accounted for.
...................
Link: news.yahoo.com ...

This "collapse model" does not challenge the theories surrounding WTC7, however.

What it does do though is further support that hijackers on 9/11 brought down the twin towers.

I have to wonder whether Osama Bin Laden and the hijackers saw it happening this way? Did they anticipate that the fires would be enough to turn down the buildings after impact? Or did they know that aluminum/water explosions would finish the job? Considering how much support there was for OBL and whatnot, I'm sure he had enough brainpower on his side to figure these things out. This man was by no means a cave dweller. He had support from all over.

Reality is that no one, on either side of this debate, will convince the other side to change position. I have a lot of questions about how this was planned and who knew it was gonna happen. But the physical aspects of the towers falling has been explained over and over again by real engineers, though many refuse to acknowledge this. There are too many people saying "its impossible" and stating "basic physics" and "its never happened before" that are simply wrong. It has happened before, many times.

What happened is called a progressive collapse and it can happen for a variety of reasons. Here is a link(which will be ignored and shot down immediately, Im sure) that explains it and sites many examples, several of which were initiated by fires inside steel structures:

Progressive collapse

Here is a very thorough "scientific" explanation of the forces which played into the collapse(which will be ignored and shot down immediately as well, Im sure). There are many, many engineers that have proven(over and over) that the towers could have and did fall due to damage caused by the planes and the resulting fires....

Collapse calculations

Now, Im not taking a stand or claiming "I" know how the towers fell. Im just searching for the answers. This type of information is MUCH more credible, then some youtube link or some anonymous guy on the internet claiming "facts" that cleary are not facts, but unanswered questions.....

Take special note of the 2 examples of progressive collapse, one being May 10th, 1993 and the other being Feb 12th, 2005.....both were steel buildings that fell, after fire weakened the steel structure

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by spw184

 

One scientist against thousands of Architects, Structural Engineers, Fire fighters, and Pilots for 9/11 truth and you want to put all your eggs in this guys basket?

Go right ahead...

nuff said, ten years on I don't think I can argue this anymore, believe whatever you want since thats already the case.

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by spw184

9/11 Truthers DEBUNKED FOREVER

news.yahoo.com

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
When will it end??

Thanks Newc,

For the opportunity to see the orginal title of this OP's thread. While the actual link does bring something new to the table, it's obvious that it is not intended to be for discussion, I'm outa here.

reply to post by Howakan

I agree. Back in 2001-04, I used to wonder if it was an insider job. I didn't support the Iraq war and thought that 9/11 was being milked for a purpose other than peace (still do). But all I ever had were doubts. I was never a truther. But in the last year or so, I have started to research it and have made a complete reversal in my thought processes. I have went from doubting the OS to realizing that the facts support it. While I'm still confused about WTC7, my thoughts about WTC1&2 have never supported the OS more than they do now.

It goes like this:
1) WTC1&2 displayed buckling in the area of the impact just before they collapsed
2) Each floor was connected to the central column(s); it did not support the floors above it
3) The fire proofing was blown off on impact on the floors where the planes hit
4) Without fire proofing, the floors were unable to maintain integrity; were already low capacity anyway
5) Airliner impact scenarios were based on a slow flying 707, in fog; not a fast flying 767 on a sunny day
6) This latest model indicates localized temperatures could reach 2,200 to 2,700 F via aluminum/water explosions
7) The top floors had a lot of weight/equipment
8) 10 years later, and 9/11 truthers have not submitted a better explanation than the OS
9) OBL admitted to the attack on video several years ago; truthers just ignore it and claim it's fake
10) WTC7 was struck by debris from the collapsing tower(s); i think you can see this on video as well
11) WTC1&2 are relatively old building designs; a lot will be learned from this to make designs safer

Those are just some of the things that have led me here.

Originally posted by spw184


Read, divulge. And stop the endless bickering. There is no use in pointing fingers and its now clear that the goverment did not do it. This article and experiment tackle almost all truthers theories and seeing that this guy is a trustworthy scientist.. Ima have to trust him more than some college kid in his moms basement. OS-er gain another point. Yay yay yay!

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

and you come in here in all your vastness of wisdom thinking THIS IS IT!!! THIS is the end of the 9-11 conspiracy, its over? No more bickering? Are you really that naive? Surely you had to of seen that your last paragraph was designed to, yup....create more bickering...

you think the ONLY questions people have are regarding WTC1 & 2? really?...

Edit to add: even scientists that believe the OS don't agree with this guys "theory" or "model"...

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by malcr

 

2. Nobody is saying it was hot enough to melt steel merely soften it so it lost structural integrity.

when talking about the damage done to the steel beams, like the now infamous photo showing I believe 2 fire fighters, in the rubble pile and behind them is visible a core beam of one of the towers, sliced cleanly at a 45 degree angle with melted and bubbled steel at the edges.

The firefighters cut those beams with oxy - acetylene torches to clear the area of bent and twisted beams that hampered debris removal. Sorry, those cuts were made by torches AFTER the collapse.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I agree, I have to give it to the scientist who attempts to come up with a viable theory that explains all the circumstances involved in the WTC collapse. Although, I do not think it is the nail in the coffin either. This is probably the first theory though from someone not claiming 9/11 is a conspiracy, that I could actually entertain. My gut though tells me there is other things to consider. I want to know how all the passports of hijackers were found, how box cutters were found, and why government didn't do their job. No matter how the towers came down, I will maintain that government wanted to use this incident to go to war and may have fabricated evidence to support that cause. This is the conspiracy that I think everyone should agree.

For those who have trouble with why World Trade Center Building #7 collapsed, this may help:

www.youtube.com...

One point I would like to make about the fires that burned for over 8 hours in the lower floors of WTC 7. The diesel fuel powered back up generators that were to provide power for an emergency were fed by big tanks full of diesel gasoline. The video does not state that, but rather only notes the location of the generators themselves. I am still looking for the video that shows the fuel tanks. It surmises that the lines that fed fuel to the generators became ruptured and the gas tanks emptied their contents into the lower floors, thereby causing the lower support trusses to be exposed to continuos flames for (8?) hours before they too gave way, initiating the collapse from the BOTTOM of the building, not the top, like WTC 1 and 2.

reply to post by spw184


Interesting. It does sound like a 'perfect storm' situation though, and it would not answer a lot of other questions.Interesting nonetheless.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


Looky here ....no not over there ....there is nothing to see ..... just go to the table and get your glass of cool aid and cookie. Nothing to see....nothing to seee......There will never be a tried and true investigation cause all of the evidence was destroyed. Nothing to investigate= OS is indesputible= KO

reply to post by intrptr


Oh, I thought I saw the penthouse at the top of the building falling first, my bad.
So again, uneven open fires caused a even implosion, got it.

Originally posted by intrptr

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by malcr

 

2. Nobody is saying it was hot enough to melt steel merely soften it so it lost structural integrity.

when talking about the damage done to the steel beams, like the now infamous photo showing I believe 2 fire fighters, in the rubble pile and behind them is visible a core beam of one of the towers, sliced cleanly at a 45 degree angle with melted and bubbled steel at the edges.

The firefighters cut those beams with oxy - acetylene torches to clear the area of bent and twisted beams that hampered debris removal. Sorry, those cuts were made by torches AFTER the collapse.

Take note where the slag is, you may see something interesting, if you can grasp it.

reply to post by dontlaughthink

Four (4) current and former Congress members have recently come forth to push for a new 911 investigation:

Dr. Ron Paul - because of the inordinate negligence of that day by the strongest military resources in the world..
Mr. Bob Graham, former 911 Commissioner - because of recent discovery that a complete chapter for the 911 report about involvement by some very wealthy Saudi Arabian people in Florida was deleted before publication of the 911 Commission Report.
Mr. Dennis Kucinich and Mr. Mike Gravel - who are standing behind the evidence presented by A&E911.

Also, a recent poll now shows that >50% of New Yorkers now believe we must have a new investigation.

Taken together with the forthcoming report by torontohearings.org... , it is probable that we will indeed see a new independent, full-supoena, under-oath investigation within 15 months, which will hopefully solve many of the issues held by both sides of this debate.