I'm not sure why people ignore that fact that there was a 6,000 gallon fuel tank sitting 15 feet above the ground floor. This combined with the damage done by the falling Trade Center buildings would be very likely to cause the same type of circumstances which brought down the two towers, i.e. enormous structural damage combined with large quantities of burning fuel.
I'm not sure why people ignore that fact that there was a 6,000 gallon fuel tank sitting 15 feet above the ground floor. This combined with the damage done by the falling Trade Center buildings would be very likely to cause the same type of circumstances which brought down the two towers, i.e. enormous structural damage combined with large quantities of burning fuel.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,893
- 213
- 106
That was on CNN. Same channel I was watching. He did not say with confidence that they would come down, he said that he wouldn't be surprised if they collapsed.
I don't doubt that they'd collapse. It was brought up in our office prior to the engineer talking about the possibility of it. And when the first one came down we all just stood there, mouths open, in shock. We'd just been watching dozens of people standing inside the holes of the crash and others around the top of the building asking why helicopters couldn't try to nab them.
What people are not remembering is that these were office building complete with partitions separating individual office spaces. And since these are usually muffled with polystyrene foam then the accellerent was probably just that. I can vouch from burning a stack of wall mouldings that this stuff burns extremely hot (which is why its in the new generation of napalm) and the outside of it cools and hardens around the hot molten core. If this stuff had melted and stuck to wall supports then it could have been what heated the steel beams and concrete supports. A good solid investigation could support the theory or at least rule it out. My problem with this whole investigation is the presumption that nobody should care to know.
According to Chapter 5 of the report the structural damage to 7 from debris impacts in addition to the fires that appear to have compromised the diaphram floors (5-7) brought the building down. I quote:
"Section 5.5.4 describes the sequence of the WTC 7 collapse. The described sequence is consistent with building collapse resulting from an initial (triggering) failure that occured internally in the east portion of the lower floor in the buildilng. There is no clear evidence of exactly where or on which floor the initiating failure occured. Possiblities can be divided into three potential scenarios based on floor. In each case, the concern is the failure of ether a truss or one or more columns in the lower floors of the east portion of the bulding. Each of the scenarois is a hypotehsis based on the facts known and the unknown conditions that would b e required for the hypothesis to be valid. The cases are presented nto as conclusions, but as a basis for further investigation."
It's important to note that after the collapse of tower 1 and 2 the fire fighting efforts essentially ceased, as noted in the report, and as a result fires had their way in the secondary buildings.
3 - Oh...I don't know...having an airplane crash into a building may have weakend it's structural integrity just a bit you think? I also heard that jet fuel was pretty darn hot.
# 1 - I see you dont know what "pull it" or to "Pull" a building means.
# 2 - We Americans are dumb, we deserve everything we get for allowing Bush and Cheny to be TOGETHER, with no recordings and video, in the 911 commision. That is simply our fault.
# 3 - People knew ahead of time that bush was going to be at the elemetary school (tv, news, etc.) If there are planes flying around the US into buildings, how did bush know he was safe to just sit at the elementary school and read? especially if there were prior annoucements that he was going to be at the school?
When you cannot attack the argument, attack the source. Use whatever neccessary to discredit the source so by the time you are done no one will belieave anything they say. Not to mention that the argument itself is by then ignored and lost, which is the secondary goal.
Like lemmings off the cliff....
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I see you refuse to recognize that "pull it" refers to the firefighting effort. Nobody ever said "pull the building." Congrats on ignoring context and using your overactive imagination in combination with severe paranoia.
The conspiracy theorists are dumb as well as paranoid.
I can play this stupid game too:
How do you know it was really Bush at the elementary school and not some body double? Prove to me it wasn't a body double.
:roll:
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,893
- 213
- 106
After listening considerably to an architectural engineer it sounds like the collapses were unprecedented. He'd always wondered what would have allowed them to fall like that, too, and was curious what the investigation had proven. He was surprised to hear that there may have been no formal study of the materials, especially laboratory work on the steel and concrete properties.
When demolitioning a building there is considerable attention spent to create even compression between floor spaces. He wasn't familiar with the article but did know what the guy was alluding to say. Apparently this incident magically happened without uneven compression during the collapse, according the article. He said that during demolition there is a orchestration of the collapse of the supporting understructure else the building would fall down on the basement floor and the steel supports mostly stay intact, or worse and the building falls asymmetrically. If the understructure is compromised evenly then it allows the structure to neatly settle in a small footprint. And to create this effect it can take a hundred charges of explosive even in a building as small as ten floors tall.
When demolitioning a building there is considerable attention spent to create even compression between floor spaces. He wasn't familiar with the article but did know what the guy was alluding to say. Apparently this incident magically happened without uneven compression during the collapse, according the article. He said that during demolition there is a orchestration of the collapse of the supporting understructure else the building would fall down on the basement floor and the steel supports mostly stay intact, or worse and the building falls asymmetrically. If the understructure is compromised evenly then it allows the structure to neatly settle in a small footprint. And to create this effect it can take a hundred charges of explosive even in a building as small as ten floors tall.
Here is a forum dedicated to the analysis of the collapse of the WTC: << 911 & The World Trade Center (WTC) - Chain of Evidence >>
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin...4&sid=84b099309c83c48a968d0caab26aa1fc
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin...4&sid=84b099309c83c48a968d0caab26aa1fc
Do your research, letsroll is Bogus.
Metal liquidfied yet there were jumpers. They also shipped off the scrap metal that was left NOT a BIG BLOB of melted steel.
Any got the link with the firefighters that said that could "knock out" the fire within little time?
WHY the secrecy, why was the commision a CLOSED commision, and bush / cheney said they would not do it unless there were no notes, cameras, recorders, AND they both had to be in the same room at the SAME time. How can you fall for that,?
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled ?Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba? was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would [B
Well, beyoku, I just discovered that forum while googling about the WTC, but it seems you are right:
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=447
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
At this last link they recommend: http://www.wtc7.net/
Which Was already in my too many, unclassified, 9/11 bookmarks.
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=447
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
At this last link they recommend: http://www.wtc7.net/
Which Was already in my too many, unclassified, 9/11 bookmarks.
Refute what with an intelligent rebuttal? The only stuff posted in this thread has been complete and utter bullsh!t. There IS NOTHING TO REFUTE. None of you even have the education or experience to even wipe your ass with the ASCE report let alone critisize it.
You have absolutely no understanding of thermodynamics or physics yet you think you know more about both than people that have spent their lives studying it. Like the firefighters complaining that they weren't involved in the failure analysis you don't have the credibility to even question the document and as such every comment you make on the subject, because you are so completely ignorant, is not even worth considering or responding to. The BS you post makes people dumber for reading it.
Why don't you tell China to stop buying all the scrap steel, it's been going on for years and has doubled the price of steel over the past few years. In fact prices have been increasing daily, and it would make my job easier if you could convince them to stop buying all the scrap steel in the world, so get cracking on convincing them.
I agree, you and the other tin foil hat hen clubers think that a firefighter with a couple courses in arson investigation could even fathom the failure of a structure the size of a WTC. The idiocy of that is astounding. It must derive of your complete and utter lack of understanding of science. It's unfortunate that so many are so ignorant but I will not give credibility to anyone that is so stupid. This country has grown weak by tolerating stupidity like that presented in this thread.
The ASCE report is thorough, recommends further study and I doubt a single tin foiler in this thread has even read more than the executive summary nor could even comprehend the results presented in the other chapters. If the PDF's allowed quoting I might consider responding to individual items but they don't and my time is more valuable to me.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,893
- 213
- 106
rahvin,
Before the first collapse, why does the building next to the North Tower - building WT6 - suddenly go up in a giant plume BEFORE the tower falls? That has always bothered me, And then go look at the post-catastrophe images of WT6 - there is a gigantic hole down the middle of the whole building as if it exploded - and its largely just the outside frame left standing. Strange that a nick by the collapsing tower above makes the center of the building blow outward and up. We'll just ignore WT7, too, for arguments sake.
Before the first collapse, why does the building next to the North Tower - building WT6 - suddenly go up in a giant plume BEFORE the tower falls? That has always bothered me, And then go look at the post-catastrophe images of WT6 - there is a gigantic hole down the middle of the whole building as if it exploded - and its largely just the outside frame left standing. Strange that a nick by the collapsing tower above makes the center of the building blow outward and up. We'll just ignore WT7, too, for arguments sake.
bigdog1218
Golden Member
- Mar 7, 2001
- 1,674
- 2
- 0
I would take the word of a firefighter whos sole job is working with fire over a snot nosed civil like you. Not saying I agree with this whole conspiracy thing, but stop spewing all this I know thermo and I'm the god of science and I'm better than everyone in this thread. You're a civil, you're barely an engineer yourself.
If the firefighters want to look at the steel, why not let them? Maybe they finding something new, maybe they don't.
Good grief people. Did everyone get a case of collective alzheimers about 9/11? For God's sakes, we all freaking watched the planes slam into the WTC. Oh wait, those were flown by remote control to. Right? Excuse me while I go invest heavy in aluminum & tin futures.
You might think so if your a lemming. Intelligent people can see he didn't rebut anything I said.
Telling someone that it's not worth rebuting a question because it means nothing is not a rebutal.
Spouting off about having experience and those with credentials saying otherwise on a subject when a simple straightforward question is posed is not a rebutal.
Going on and on about how China buys up bulk scrap metal is not a rebutal but simply a re-inforcement to my statement that it was convenient.
Finally the statements made against the source of arguments simply re-inforces my statements that this is percisely what people do to discredit and distort the issue so the real hard questions these people are asking never... ever get answered.
Umm thx for helping me out.
Which is stranger.
Believing that or thinking a poll equates to fact.
I just took an unbiased poll. 17 of 21 people believe that the miracle bullet brought down the towers and that it was the bullet we saw, not planes.
PS. Humor challenged? Don't read the previous paragraph.
edited to add:
Excuse me... have you seen it on the mainstream media in the last 24 hours? If not how can you think it happened.
Believing that or thinking a poll equates to fact.
I just took an unbiased poll. 17 of 21 people believe that the miracle bullet brought down the towers and that it was the bullet we saw, not planes.
PS. Humor challenged? Don't read the previous paragraph.
edited to add:
Excuse me... have you seen it on the mainstream media in the last 24 hours? If not how can you think it happened.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,893
- 213
- 106
I wouldn't of given the collapses another thought if not for the clearly separate explosion of WTC 6 - before WTC 1 (the North Tower) fell - which doesn't seem to have an explanation out there for it.
Either explosives were being set off by someone or the magic bullet really did bring down the towers!
Either explosives were being set off by someone or the magic bullet really did bring down the towers!
I don't know what you are talking about, I never saw a building go up in flames before the collapse but I wouldn't be supprised if one had, as flaming debris left both towers after the impact of the planes (and after falling 50 stories it would have hit other buildings with sufficient force to penetrate the structure). The collapse of WT5 was of much more importance (a much more substantial fire and severe heat deformation of the structural steel) as 6 took a substantial debris hit from tower one with debris pentrating to the basement and knocking the entire centre of the building out. There is an entire chapter devoted to 3,5 and 6 and a seperate chapter devoted to 7.
Newsflash: I didn't write the WTC report, a very experienced team of designers and forensics engineers did. But you did give me a pretty good laugh. :thumbsup:
And what are they going to learn from it? What this is about is a bunch of firefighters that aren't getting the lime light for the investigation. They have their panties in a bunch because they didn't get to participate and they can't sell their FDNY shirts and hats along with their big press conferences saying they "analyized the steel" using their firefighter powers. Boo hoo, I feel so sorry for them. If they want to analyze the steel they can buy the scrap just like anyone else.
You haven't asked a simple question that isn't answered in the report (or isn't the most obvious answer), and you would know that if you had bothered to read it. I do understand, the document, outside the executive summary, is highly techinical and those big words like kips, joules, truss and the framing diagrams confuse and confound you so you do the best thing you can do which is make comments about professional engineers getting their degrees from cerel boxes. I'm sure everyone who reads it thinks you are just the most incredibly intelligent person they have ever seen, no wait they don't.
Thanks for giving me a good laugh guys, I was smiling for a couple hours after reading your attempted insults.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,893
- 213
- 106
WTC 6 actually goes up in a large brown pume before either tower fell.
Almost as soon as the WTC 6 plume rises up the entire WTC 1 collapses.
There was virtually no damage to WTC 6 until the collapse or whatever transpired before the collapse of WTC 1. But whatever happened the guts of WTC 6 were blown up and out of it.
I invite you to spend a few minutes and just rewatch the first collapse. Until I saw what they were talking about I'd pf never questioned it myself.
Almost as soon as the WTC 6 plume rises up the entire WTC 1 collapses.
There was virtually no damage to WTC 6 until the collapse or whatever transpired before the collapse of WTC 1. But whatever happened the guts of WTC 6 were blown up and out of it.
I invite you to spend a few minutes and just rewatch the first collapse. Until I saw what they were talking about I'd pf never questioned it myself.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Discussion (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 8000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 5K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram