posted
Well, it's that time of year again -- academics, experts, witnesses and other respectable "credentialized" people are being paraded before us on radio, TV, and in the press to commemorate the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
There are, of course, synaptically alert people like Barry Zwicker who have steadfastly refused to swallow the conspiratorial nonsense about two aircraft being able to bring down steel-framed buildings, or a passenger aircraft with a 255-ft. wingspan making a 16-ft. hole in the Pentagon.
posted
A nice well thought out piece. Not that I agree with everything said, but by Jingo I'll defend to the death the right for him to say it.
-------------------- All the world's a face, And all the men and women merely acne. Posts: 673 | From: Glasgow, Scotland | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: By my friend’s logic, my debunking of the official narrative will have been vindicated, yet my arguments would not have changed. Therefore, his initial hostility is irrational. Of course, this argument could be avoided if he addressed my evidence instead of ignoring it. For example:
How could kerosene-based commercial jet fuel, which burns around 345° C in open air, melt steel, which has a melting point of approximately 1,370° C?
Because it wasn't burning in open air.
quote: Why did the exterior walls offer no resistance whatsoever to the collapsing floors?
Because they wouldn't. The walls weren't built to do that. Modern buildings are built of a central core - the exterior walls just hang off that.
quote: How could Muslims have been responsible for the collapse of WTC7 when New York firemen admitted they brought it down?
NY firemen didn't admit anything of the sort.
quote: How could WTC7 have been rigged for demolition in a mere 90 minutes after building owner Larry Silverstein gave the order?
Because it wasn't rigged for demolition, and Larry Silverstein gave no such order.
quote: These and other questions do not compute for him because his reality cannot cope with the answers.
Or because the questions are non-sensical.
quote: Despite our great scientific achievements, we are not as far removed from the Middle Ages as we might think.
Unfortunately not - we still get crap like this trotted out.
quote: It is often easier to believe a facile lie than a disquieting truth if the truth threatens to upset one’s world view. Problem is, facts do not go away because we choose not to believe them. Eventually, reality must adapt.
Something I can agree with. Pity the author doesn't subscribe...
quote: In the official narrative of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Subsequent forensic evidence has debunked this theory,
No, it hasn't.
Mildly amusing, but not exactly strenous.
-------------------- Q. What's the difference between a Computer saleman and a Used Car Salesman? A. The Used Car Salesman knows when he is lying. Posts: 421 | From: Victoria, Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Arguing 911 conspiracy theories is like the world's most infuriating game of whack-a-mole. They just keep come at you with more lies, illogic, and quotes taken out of context, no matter how many you debunk.
This one is particularly annoying:
quote:How could kerosene-based commercial jet fuel, which burns around 345° C in open air, melt steel, which has a melting point of approximately 1,370° C?
Maybe because the steel didn't have to melt, just be weakened, which happens at a considerably lower temperature? Not to mention that there was a lot of stuff in the WTC that caught on fire and burned long after the jet fuel was gone.
Posts: 160 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad I was reading up on this yesterday
quote: How could kerosene-based commercial jet fuel, which burns around 345° C in open air, melt steel, which has a melting point of approximately 1,370° C?
Steel down't have to melt completely to become weak enough. From the NIST WTC collapse FAQ here
quote: 7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? OR 7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
quote: Why did the exterior walls offer no resistance whatsoever to the collapsing floors?
The main evidence for that argument is that it took somewhere between 8.5 to 10 seconds for a tower to collapse. Since, a ball freefalling from the top of the tower would take about 9 seconds in pure vaccum, the towers should have taken much longer because the lower floors would offer resistance
The problem is that the evidence is simply not reliable. The timings are based on video evidence and are purely estimates Here's NIST's response
quote: 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
How could Muslims have been responsible for the collapse of WTC7 when New York firemen admitted they brought it down?
How could WTC7 have been rigged for demolition in a mere 90 minutes after building owner Larry Silverstein gave the order?
There is a lot of confusion regarding Silverstein saying that we should "pull out" from WTC 7. He explains that he meant the fire men should "pull out", but that doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists from saying that he meant "pull it out", which is jargon for demolating a building. WTC7 wasn't destroyed by firefighters. It collapsed on it's own because of fire and debris damage. I think there is still investigation pending regarding what caused WTC7 to fall, but that's a long ways from syaing that firemen demo'ed the building or Silversein gave the order. Here's an article on 911 myths again
ETA: better formatting
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gave up trying to explain to the crackpots why all their conspiracy theories are wrong. They finally asked me for proof they were wrong. After explaining the burden of proof was on THEM, I still did as I was asked to avert the classic "You won't offer proof so your answers SUXXORS!!!!!eleventy-one!!!11" comeback.
As I unfortunately expected, my proof from both government and non-government authorities was amusingly explained away as "strawmen" and "baseless facts.
I finally walked away when I was about two seconds away from literally trying to physically reach through the monitor and choke these people to death.
I've checked back in again a couple-three times to see what's going on. They are still going on about all of their "proof" and how the world is waking up to these new "facts". Someone even claimed that NINETY PERCENT of Americans believe that there was a conspiracy.
Gods help us all. *heavy sigh*
-------------------- It can't rain all the time. Posts: 1102 | From: Iowa | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah - and we won't bother to metion that the 16' hole in the pentagon was in the interior ring... after the remains of the jet and debris went through at least 6 concrete structural walls and many more sub-structures.
I really like the whack a mole analogy. No matter how many facts you come up with, crackpot theories are faster to make up, so you'll always be reactivley trying to respond and logic them to whack!! Ugh...
ETA: Oh - and 90% of Americans are right... there was (at least one) a conspiracy! I think it was about 3/4 successful on that day...Self
posted
Ninety percent of Americans probably do believe there was a conspiracy. Isn't a conspiracy where two or more persons get together to plan and execute a criminal act? So yeah, technically it was a conspiracy between a group of terrorists.
I just fail to see how anyone could interpret the events other than what most of us accept - hijacked planes flown into buildings.
ETA Spanked by Warlock
-------------------- "Ladies and gentlemen, this is what is commonly known as money. It comes in all sizes, colours, and denominations - like people." Posts: 997 | From: Maidstone, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:How could kerosene-based commercial jet fuel, which burns around 345° C in open air, melt steel, which has a melting point of approximately 1,370° C?
Maybe because the steel didn't have to melt, just be weakened, which happens at a considerably lower temperature? Not to mention that there was a lot of stuff in the WTC that caught on fire and burned long after the jet fuel was gone.
Actually, this is the one point I find the most difficult to believe the official version of.
Jet fuel only burns hot if it's nicely atomized, compressed and forcefed air. Without that, it's just a spectacular whoosh with very little heat. I've seen a fairly large amount of jet fuel (maybe 15 liters) go off under a low tree (engine experiment that went slightly wrong), and the tree was completely engulfed in the fireball, but didn't even catch fire.
Yes, steel does not have to melt to be weakened, but it still needs to absorb quite some heat. That takes time. I tried to heat a 5 mm square piece of mild steel enough to bend it without cracking it using an ordinary propane blow torch, and that was not enough. Heating it with jet fuel would take a lot of time and the fuel would have to be in direct contact with the steel, as well as having a decent air flow, otherwise the heat will never get into the material.
If you watch the video of the impacts, you see a huge fireball that lasts maybe a couple of seconds. The fire doesn't even last long enough to reach the ground, as it is consumed before it rains down. That was the jet fuel. After that, it's gone. Some small amounts may remain, but not enough to explain how it manages to heat up heavy girders that much.
The fire inside the building was most likely stuff that was already there, such as furniture, construction materials, carpets and so on, which was ignited by the small fires from the remaining jet fuel. Once again, if you look at the footage, you don't see any huge flaming inferno, what you see is mostly smoke (btw, jet fuel is almost smokeless). These fires should have been extinguished by the fire control systems, but they were not.
So, as for the fire and the resulting collapse, yes, I think there was a coverup. The coverup is, however, probably not some huge sinister coverup of a pre-charged building. My guess is that it's a coverup of an effed up design, with inadequate fire control systems and possibly inadequte structure.
Go out and play with some kerosene (jet fuel is almost identical to kerosene, just with a higher standard of quality). Set off a splash of kerosene under a wooden plank and see if it ignites.
I've even seen flame tornados made with kerosene in cardboard boxes without igniting the box (as long as the kerosene is not allowed to soak into the cardbox, as that turns the cardboard into a wick). Just take a high cardboard box with a roughly quadratical bottom, say 2 feet across and 4 feet high or something like that. Cut slim vertical slots along the right hand edge of each side for the air to enter. But a wide bowl of kerosene or methanol in the bottom and ignite it. Quite spectacular, but be careful or you may lose some hair. Sure, a cardboard box is not the WTC, and a bowl of kerosene is not an aircraft full of it, but it still gives a good feel about how kerosene behaves and how likely it is to do this kind of damage.
Just be careful, I don't want to be blamed if you do something stupid. Most important: don't get kerosene on your clothes. If you do, abort all experiments until you have changed clothes. Also, never ignite anyting in a closed container or a container with a "choking point", such as a bottle, unless you are very sure it will not explode or spew burning liquid all over you.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: Jet fuel only burns hot if it's nicely atomized, compressed and forcefed air. Without that, it's just a spectacular whoosh with very little heat. I've seen a fairly large amount of jet fuel (maybe 15 liters) go off under a low tree (engine experiment that went slightly wrong), and the tree was completely engulfed in the fireball, but didn't even catch fire.
Not all the jet fuel was exposed to air and fire at the same time. It was not in an open container. Most likely, after the intial burst of fuel that escaped from the planes fuel cells, jet fuel steadily leaked, and may very well have leaked in liquid form to saturate portions of the building interior, creating a wick effect.
quote:Yes, steel does not have to melt to be weakened, but it still needs to absorb quite some heat. That takes time. I tried to heat a 5 mm square piece of mild steel enough to bend it without cracking it using an ordinary propane blow torch, and that was not enough. Heating it with jet fuel would take a lot of time and the fuel would have to be in direct contact with the steel, as well as having a decent air flow, otherwise the heat will never get into the material.
The initial impact of the jet did significant damage to the structural integrity of the building. It gave the fire a head start on weakening the support structures.
quote:If you watch the video of the impacts, you see a huge fireball that lasts maybe a couple of seconds. The fire doesn't even last long enough to reach the ground, as it is consumed before it rains down. That was the jet fuel. After that, it's gone. Some small amounts may remain, but not enough to explain how it manages to heat up heavy girders that much.
The buildings were equipped with natural gas lines, furniture, panelling, artificial fibers and plastics, loads of paper and other wood-pulp products...all those things make nice fuel.
quote:The fire inside the building was most likely stuff that was already there, such as furniture, construction materials, carpets and so on, which was ignited by the small fires from the remaining jet fuel. Once again, if you look at the footage, you don't see any huge flaming inferno, what you see is mostly smoke (btw, jet fuel is almost smokeless). These fires should have been extinguished by the fire control systems, but they were not.
Well, the impact the planes could easily have caused massive damage to the plumbing lines the operated the fire safety systems. If the plane pierced the plumbing that delivers water to the extinguishing system, there may not have been enough water pressure to suppress the fires (if the systems worked at all after the impact).
quote:So, as for the fire and the resulting collapse, yes, I think there was a coverup. The coverup is, however, probably not some huge sinister coverup of a pre-charged building. My guess is that it's a coverup of an effed up design, with inadequate fire control systems and possibly inadequte structure.
If by inadequate you mean that the buildings weren't designed to withstand the impact of multiple jetliners, then yes. You are absolutely correct in that they were inadequately designed to handle an attack as happened on September 11th, 2001.
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: The fire inside the building was most likely stuff that was already there, such as furniture, construction materials, carpets and so on, which was ignited by the small fires from the remaining jet fuel. Once again, if you look at the footage, you don't see any huge flaming inferno, what you see is mostly smoke (btw, jet fuel is almost smokeless). These fires should have been extinguished by the fire control systems, but they were not.
This NIST test shows a house fire getting up to almost 1400°F and staying around 1150°F until fire suppression began. And the fire control systems were in the ceiling and were probably destroyed by the impact.
quote:Go out and play with some kerosene (jet fuel is almost identical to kerosene, just with a higher standard of quality). Set off a splash of kerosene under a wooden plank and see if it ignites.
A fireball in an unconfined space is far from sustained fire in a confined space.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without that, it's just a spectacular whoosh with very little heat.
Funny but when the USS Forrestal and Enterprise had their big fires they were hot enough to cook off bomb and those were jet fuel fires.
quote:(btw, jet fuel is almost smokeless).
Only if properly atomized and mixed with the correct amount of air THis is what jet fuel looks like when on fire in great amounts without proper atomization [URL]http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/ [/URL] Playing around with small amounts of JP5,4 or kerosene is fine but no way to explain what can happen when immense amounts such as those carried on jet aircraft are involved.
ETA replace img with url
Posts: 4 | From: Stratford, WI | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:A fireball in an unconfined space is far from sustained fire in a confined space.
And what evidence do we have for the presence of jet fuel in the building or a sustained jet fuel fire? There is very little flame, mostly smoke. That, to me, implies that it's interior stuff that's burning, not fuel. Jet fuel burns almost without smoke (which can be seen in the initial whoosh).
quote:Funny but when the USS Forrestal and Enterprise had their big fires they were hot enough to cook off bomb and those were jet fuel fires.
Let me guess, it happened in a confined storage space, under the deck. That's not exactly the same as when it happens in a high energy impact that ruptures the tanks outside the building, then blows most of the windows out. If there was fuel remaining, it was atomized and it had air.
quote:Playing around with small amounts of JP5,4 or kerosene is fine but no way to explain what can happen when immense amounts such as those carried on jet aircraft are involved.
To some extent, I agree, but it still gives an insight in how difficult it is to get a really hot flame going and sustaining it.
If you know what you are doing and have good control over the circumstances, you can get a pretty hot flame ( http://www.nf.suite.dk/pulse-jet/ ), but any jet enthusiast can tell you that it doesn't happen by accident.
quote:Not all the jet fuel was exposed to air and fire at the same time. It was not in an open container. Most likely, after the intial burst of fuel that escaped from the planes fuel cells, jet fuel steadily leaked, and may very well have leaked in liquid form to saturate portions of the building interior, creating a wick effect.
The fuel tanks are in the wings. How much of the wings survived the impact? The tanks ruptured like water balloons.
quote:The buildings were equipped with natural gas lines, furniture, panelling, artificial fibers and plastics, loads of paper and other wood-pulp products...all those things make nice fuel.
Yep, I don't deny that. In fact, I say that's the fire that really brought the buildings down, and that's the fire that the fire suppression systems should have handled.
quote:Well, the impact the planes could easily have caused massive damage to the plumbing lines the operated the fire safety systems. If the plane pierced the plumbing that delivers water to the extinguishing system, there may not have been enough water pressure to suppress the fires (if the systems worked at all after the impact).
And that's exactly the kind of design flaws I think they are trying to sweep under the carpet.
quote:If by inadequate you mean that the buildings weren't designed to withstand the impact of multiple jetliners, then yes.
Minor nitpick: they didn't take multiple jet liners. They took one each.
And yes, they should have been designed with that in mind, as other tall buildings are. When you make something that stick that much out of the ground, you got to think about such things.
----
Basically, this is what I think happened:
Plane hit. Wings smashed to shreds, rupturing tanks. The high impact hit splashes the fuel over a large area and ignites it, somewhat like an improvised fuel-air bomb. Fuel goes whoosh. The interior of the building catches fire from the burning fuel, but the fuel quickly burns out and the interior selfmaintains the combustion. The fire suppression systems is not able to do their job, do to limited capacity or lack of backup systems. Eventually, the building can't take it and come crashing down.
Pretty much the same effect you'd get if you ignited most of the stuff on a couple of floors by some other means. I don't think the structural damage from the impact even made much difference. A structure that's designed to hold that many floors above it shouldn't be that badly damaged bu an aircraft.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me guess, it happened in a confined storage space, under the deck.
No actually both happened on the flight deck.
And the fuel didn't go whoosh and disappear. It took over 4 hours for the fires on the Enterprise to be put out.
I think a lot more fuel went into the WTC than you believe. The walls of the WTC are not the walls of the Pentagon. Most pictures that show the damage show quite a large hole in the side of the building.
quote:A structure that's designed to hold that many floors above it shouldn't be that badly damaged bu an aircraft.
Nevermind all that extra weight of the plane alone. Or the stress loads presented by the impact of all that weight going in excess of 500 mph.
Posts: 4 | From: Stratford, WI | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: Yep, I don't deny that. In fact, I say that's the fire that really brought the buildings down, and that's the fire that the fire suppression systems should have handled.
quote:Well, the impact the planes could easily have caused massive damage to the plumbing lines the operated the fire safety systems. If the plane pierced the plumbing that delivers water to the extinguishing system, there may not have been enough water pressure to suppress the fires (if the systems worked at all after the impact).
And that's exactly the kind of design flaws I think they are trying to sweep under the carpet.
So having ceiling mounted sprinkers not functioning when the ceiling has been ripped away by a 500 mph aircraft impact is a design flaw? Having the plumbing not armoured against a massive kinetic impact is a design flaw?
Not designing against something that has never happened before is not a design flaw. It is the realistic outlook that we can't protect against everything. I'm sure the WTC was not hardened to survive a comet impact either.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read somewhere (of course, can't find it now) that the WTC towers WERE designed to handle an airplane strike. However, the "design plane" was on the order of a 737 or 727 (the common planes at the time of the design) hitting at landing speeds and NOT a 767 or 757 fully fueled and flying at high speeds. They assumed that the only way a plane would fly into it would be one that was lost and attempting to land.
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: Basically, this is what I think happened:
Plane hit. Wings smashed to shreds, rupturing tanks. The high impact hit splashes the fuel over a large area and ignites it, somewhat like an improvised fuel-air bomb. Fuel goes whoosh. The interior of the building catches fire from the burning fuel, but the fuel quickly burns out and the interior selfmaintains the combustion. The fire suppression systems is not able to do their job, do to limited capacity or lack of backup systems. Eventually, the building can't take it and come crashing down.
Pretty much. The fuel quickly distributed itself over many floors and probably was consumed within 15 minutes or so, leaving behind a multi-floor inferno.
quote:Pretty much the same effect you'd get if you ignited most of the stuff on a couple of floors by some other means.
(For WTC1)
After ripping out a chunk of the building about 100 feet deep and and 80 feet wide paring down to perhaps 30 feet, severing 14 of the 88 exterior columns (16%!) and quite a lot of the interior columns; at least enough to wipe out all the stairwells.
The fire was a big deal, but prior to the collapse, with the fires raging, the buildings were certainly unsafe. (Possibly not by your definition of unsafe. )
quote:I don't think the structural damage from the impact even made much difference. A structure that's designed to hold that many floors above it shouldn't be that badly damaged bu an aircraft.
Cool, which skyscrapers have you designed?
And even if you did think it shouldn't, that doesn't change the fact it was. To be able to hold that many floors, the structural support had to be light, thus the column core system which, quite obviously, is not terribly resistant to aircraft. A steel cage design would not have allowed the aircraft to penetrate as deeply.
A lot of engineers agree that, in hindsight, this was sort of a shitty building design, as focusing all the load-bearing members on the exterior and the core made the building more vulnerable to this sort of attack than your average steel-cage structure. No conspiracy there.
Let's also keep in mind that trying to take an aircraft weighing 395,000 lbs and decellerating it from 500 mph to 0 mph in 100 feet is not a very simple task. A concrete bomb shelter would not have stood much better.
-------------------- Thinking about New England / missing old Japan Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a comparison that could be made to those still arguing about the 'melting point' of steel. Say a man is a pipefitter and needs to shape a steel pipe by heating it first. Does he heat it to the melting point? No, he heats it to the point that it is malleable. This arguement won't affect the die-hard ones, but might make some that are still using some critical thinking ponder things for a moment.
posted
I am by no way an expert, but wouldn't the blown out windows and the large hole where the planes entered allow for a good supply with oxygen? I once was on top of the Empire State Building and it was pretty windy up there and I would guess the winds at the WTC were at least as strong. With the strong air flow the fire would be much hotter than when burning fuel in open environment, I think. Kind of like a blast furnace.
You can put some wood into a campfire and burn it there. If you put it into a fireplace with a chimney the airflow lets the wood burn hotter and faster (that is my meager experience from campfires and holiday homes with a closed cast iron fireplace which I have no idea what to call them )
So I can understand why the steel became weak and didn't hold the weight anymore.
Gavida, the technical disadvantaged.
-------------------- "He looked bigger when I couldn't see him" - Jayne Cobb Posts: 359 | From: Essen, NRW, Germany | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So having ceiling mounted sprinkers not functioning when the ceiling has been ripped away by a 500 mph aircraft impact is a design flaw? Having the plumbing not armoured against a massive kinetic impact is a design flaw?
Yep, it's a design flaw when those are the threats you are designing against.
quote:Not designing against something that has never happened before is not a design flaw.
Aircraft hitting buildings is common enough. Empire State Building took one. A 747 hit a large apartment complex in Holland. There are probably several others. A tall building is more likely to get hit by accident as well.
quote:Pretty much. The fuel quickly distributed itself over many floors and probably was consumed within 15 minutes or so, leaving behind a multi-floor inferno.
I would guess less than a minute.
quote:After ripping out a chunk of the building about 100 feet deep and and 80 feet wide paring down to perhaps 30 feet, severing 14 of the 88 exterior columns (16%!) and quite a lot of the interior columns; at least enough to wipe out all the stairwells.
The fire was a big deal, but prior to the collapse, with the fires raging, the buildings were certainly unsafe. (Possibly not by your definition of unsafe.
I saw some documentary where one of the designers of the WTC said that the structural damage from the impact would not endanger the building. I think he is right.
The structure is made of heavy steel girders, the aircraft of light aluminium. The aircraft is strong when it comes to handling the stress it's designed to take, but it more or less disintegrates when it hits something. Look at nearly every crash site photo, it looks like a field with small pieces of scattered debris. The fuselage probably knocked out a few girders in the facade, the engines probably took out some more. The wings, however, probably did very little damage. In other words, three tiny holes in a large structure. It looks like a wide gash in the side of the building on the footage, but most of it is just the mirror facade that's gone.
This is also why I think little fuel survived for long. The energy imparted on the fuel tanks in the impact caused them to burst violently and instantly atomized much of the fuel, splattering the rest all over the place in a mist of small drops. When that goes boom, it goes quickly.
quote:Cool, which skyscrapers have you designed?
None, but I'm still an engineer, and it doesn't take much common sense and weight relations to see that a structure that heavy will not be that affected by a comparatively light object. It's like playing bowling with a beach ball.
The documentary mentioned above said that the wind load the building was designed to take was over 50 times more than the impact energy of those aircraft.
If it was hit by a super tanker, then the impact energy would be a problem. An aircraft would not.
quote:Let's also keep in mind that trying to take an aircraft weighing 395,000 lbs and decellerating it from 500 mph to 0 mph in 100 feet is not a very simple task. A concrete bomb shelter would not have stood much better.
Well, the Swedish nuclear reactors are designed exactly for that scenario, and more. They are able to withstand a direct hit by the largest airliners available.
quote:Here is a comparison that could be made to those still arguing about the 'melting point' of steel. Say a man is a pipefitter and needs to shape a steel pipe by heating it first. Does he heat it to the melting point? No, he heats it to the point that it is malleable.
And to do that, he uses acetylene with a forced oxygen feed to get a hot flame. Jet fuel burning without a precisely designed air feed will not burn hot. A pulse jet will burn hot as hell, but any pulse jet enthusiast will tell you how difficult it is to get the exact dimensions needed to get that combustion going and self sustaining.
I still think the fuel only triggered the fire, and the fire that actually did any damage was from combustible material already inside the building.
quote:I am by no way an expert, but wouldn't the blown out windows and the large hole where the planes entered allow for a good supply with oxygen?
Perhaps, but it would not give you the blow torch fire needed to heat the metal structure.
Some have speculated that the elevator shafts worked as chimneys, creating a fast and efficient air flow through the center of the building.
It would probably explain it, but that explanation would have a raging inferno through the center of the building, rapidly spreading the fire all the way to the top, something that didn't happen.
It was also a predictable fire hazard, and as such should have had protective measures to stop it from happening.
The chimney effect would also have a strong air flow going in towards the center of the building, moving the hottest furnace towards the center and actually cooling the outer layer which supports the structure.
Yet, despite those question marks, it still sounds as the best explanation I've heard.
One thing that's clear is that something was different in the construction from every other sky scraper that has been on fire, as they withstood it without problem, in one case over 24 hours of fire.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My brother and I, both pyromaniacs in our younger days, once built a huge bonfire out of pretty much everything we could find that might burn and some things that almost certainly wouldn't. I'm talking junked couches and matresses, old rabbit cages, crap from the garage that needed to be thrown out, old carpet plus no small amount of brush, much of which was still green. We loaded the pile with literally gallons of gasoline, then wrapped a rag around a pole, lit it and threw it javelin-style over the pile from a "safe" distance. There was a tremendous, wall-shaking-knock-us-down-and-singe-hair-off-our-skin, short-lived explosion as the gas fumes went up, but it was enough to ignite the pile and keep it burning for hours. There really wasn't much left afterwards. Even the metal frames and springs of the furniture and matresses were weakened considerably by the blaze. I have absolutely no doubt that aviation fuel could start one heck of a fire, even if it did go up in a short flash.
El "what were we thinking?" wood
-------------------- "If I didn't see it and didn't know it was a real news report, I wouldn't believe it. I mean, how nutty can you get?"-Pat Robertson Oct 26, 2006. Posts: 2936 | From: Mean Streets of West Virginia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conspiracists (as I've said before) have an easy time of it. They don't have to build a case of prove a point. They simply have to nit-pick, cherry-pick, sometimes distort, and create an illusion of fearlessly standing up to powerful (and shadowy) enemies.
It's easy, and it's annoying to see.
-------------------- You fool! That's not a warrior, that's a banana! - a surreal moment in a role-playing game Posts: 2480 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was cool. And we were in our twenties and this was on the eve of his wedding. It was our crude idea of a bachelor party.
-------------------- "If I didn't see it and didn't know it was a real news report, I wouldn't believe it. I mean, how nutty can you get?"-Pat Robertson Oct 26, 2006. Posts: 2936 | From: Mean Streets of West Virginia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is funny some of the disdain for the conspiracy theorists (of which I am one) when the current administration has been using brain washing techniques during its entire campaign. And not once did you think you may have been given propaganda that could have been false and been brainwashed to believe it.
The number one reason I believe something fishy is going on with 9/11 is that for every plane crash, the maker of that plane collects ALL of the parts and looks at the debris to ensure what happened actually happened.
However, the airplane debris this time was put on a boat and sent to another country.
And before you say 'how would you know?' yes I worked for the Boeing company for several years. And they do it EVERY time.
The problem isn't that there are a few points that can be labeled false. The problem is that there are many. Why were so many put options bought for American Airlines? Why did the then owner of the towers buy a huge insurance policy that particularly called out terrist attacks mere weeks before 9/11? Why wasn't Giuliani transported to the room he was supposed to be in in building 7 when an attack occurred? (Although good for him, or he'd be dead now)
And, btw, the pentagon crash had no real debris to speak of from an airplane. Those wings would have snapped off (no wing holes in the building) but where are they? And why won't the government release the security tapes of the plane going into the pentagon?
And why did people at the pentagon, when interviewed before anyone could get to them, say that they saw a military helicopter hovering right near the pentagon before it happened? And why did many change their story or simply disappear from interviews? And military personnel from INSIDE the pentagon said they smelled cordite. Do you know what that is? If not, I highly suggest you look it up.
There are many unanswered questions. And the president sure did benefit from the attacks. Instead of being a completely split nation, his popularity went up, people came together in many ways, and he got two terms out of it.
That last comment alone should make you think twice.
Posts: 69 | From: Renton, WA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The problem isn't that there are a few points that can be labeled false. The problem is that there are many.
That's because there are so many consipiracy crackpots who are inventing stories and spreading disinformation.
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by btvsrcks: And, btw, the pentagon crash had no real debris to speak of from an airplane. Those wings would have snapped off (no wing holes in the building) but where are they?
(edit) Not to mention that every single alternate explanation that I've heard is far more obviously full of absurd, enormous holes than any supposed discrepancies in the "official version", and yet the conspiracy theorists are for some reason quite happy to ignore those or explain them away.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by btvsrcks: However, the airplane debris this time was put on a boat and sent to another country.
And before you say 'how would you know?' yes I worked for the Boeing company for several years. And they do it EVERY time.
Er ... if they do it "EVERY time", then why is it such a big deal this time?
quote:Originally posted by btvsrcks: The problem isn't that there are a few points that can be labeled false. The problem is that there are many. Why were so many put options bought for American Airlines? Why did the then owner of the towers buy a huge insurance policy that particularly called out terrist attacks mere weeks before 9/11?
I'd very much like to see some evidence of this.
quote:Originally posted by btvsrcks: Why wasn't Giuliani transported to the room he was supposed to be in in building 7 when an attack occurred? (Although good for him, or he'd be dead now)
Right, because in the event of an attack, they'd certainly want to take him to the site of the attack to keep him safe.
The rest of your assertations have either been debunked thoroughly, soundly, and repeatedly, or are so absurd that one would wish there wasn't a need to debunk them for someone.
Alas, there is no idea so absurd you won't find someone who'll believe it.
-------------------- Come on, come on - spin a little tighter Come on, come on - and the world's a little brighter Posts: 5595 | From: Columbus, OH : The Soccer Capital of America | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might as well give up, folks. You'll never convince Troberg, et al.
-------------------- "This air we're breathing. Oxygen, isn't it?"~I’mNotDedalus, impersonating Vincent D’Onofrio.|"Sometimes trying to communicate can be like walking through a minefield."~wanderwoman "Give people a break. It's not easy doing a life."~Joshua Halberstam Posts: 4020 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by btvsrcks: It is funny some of the disdain for the conspiracy theorists (of which I am one) when the current administration has been using brain washing techniques during its entire campaign. And not once did you think you may have been given propaganda that could have been false and been brainwashed to believe it.
The number one reason I believe something fishy is going on with 9/11 is that for every plane crash, the maker of that plane collects ALL of the parts and looks at the debris to ensure what happened actually happened.
However, the airplane debris this time was put on a boat and sent to another country.
What country? Cite, please.
quote:And before you say 'how would you know?' yes I worked for the Boeing company for several years. And they do it EVERY time.
The problem isn't that there are a few points that can be labeled false. The problem is that there are many. Why were so many put options bought for American Airlines? Why did the then owner of the towers buy a huge insurance policy that particularly called out terrist attacks mere weeks before 9/11? Why wasn't Giuliani transported to the room he was supposed to be in in building 7 when an attack occurred? (Although good for him, or he'd be dead now)
Again, perhaps I just missed these points, but cite, please.
quote:And, btw, the pentagon crash had no real debris to speak of from an airplane. Those wings would have snapped off (no wing holes in the building) but where are they? And why won't the government release the security tapes of the plane going into the pentagon?
Well they carried off debris from the airplane for weeks. It was in very small pieces. "No wing holes in the building." Puleease. Did you expect an airplane shaped hole like in the cartoons? I was there. Here is a small bit of my dissertation from a few years back:
.....I was there and escaped through the fire and wreckage. I personally know people who saw the actual impact. I saw many airplane parts. I smelled and saw burning jet fuel. I lost 19 close friends. The building still smells awful. The aircraft destroyed or damaged something like 2,000,000 square feet of office space.
More facts: The plane hit the building at an angle after bouncing on the ground, not perpendicular to the wall but at an angle to the left. If it had not, the engineers guess that it would have ripped clean through the building into the courtyard. Thousands would have perished (24,000+ work here each day). The estimated speed at impact was around 550-600 mph fully fueled.
Where did the wings go? The wings folded back as the fuselage burrowed deep within the building.
As the kinetic energy built up against the resistance of the walls, columns, etc. being plowed down, the back end of the aircraft drifted left and began to collapse towards the cockpit. Now the "ball" of steel, fire, fuel, and people are in the "C" ring (the third ring in from the helipad) and the bow wave of kinetic energy blew a 25ft wide and high hole through a reinforced concrete wall. At this point, they were DIRECTLY one floor beneath me and my office floor was buckling, and everything was on fire and me and my people were hauling ass, looking for an escape. My friends one floor below never had a chance and you can go visit them at many cemeteries in the area as well as at Arlington National Cemetery. We buried them all last September and October (2001). Several of the burned are only just beginning to recover. Several others didn’t die until late in 2003.
The Old Girl (the Pentagon building) "swallowed" the 757. She burned for almost a week. There are 5 Pentagon employees that can't even be identified by DNA and 2 who were seen at the impact zone even traces of them were never found. (The remains were interred together sometime in 2003)
Some other information I forgot to post. After coming over the hill where Arlington Cemetery is, the plane was so close to the ground that it took out a couple of streetlights that line the highway.
More Info: The "black boxes" which are in the tail of 757s were found in the debris with cockpit pieces (remember how crunched up in little pieces the plane was).
quote:And why did people at the pentagon, when interviewed before anyone could get to them, say that they saw a military helicopter hovering right near the pentagon before it happened?
There's always a helicopter around/over taking off/landing at the Pentagon.
quote:And why did many change their story or simply disappear from interviews? And military personnel from INSIDE the pentagon said they smelled cordite. Do you know what that is? If not, I highly suggest you look it up.
Not one person I have ever spoken to at the Pentagon, and that would be a very large number of people, reported smelling cordite. Besided cordite is an outdated smokeless powder that was used mainly as artillery and rocket propellant. For your theory to hold water, those astute Military members would have had to smell tritonal burning. I smelled jet fuel burning, and as I have the experience to know what burning jet fuel smell like, there is no mistaking it. Oh I also saw airplane parts burning but perhaps I was brainwashed.
quote:There are many unanswered questions. And the president sure did benefit from the attacks. Instead of being a completely split nation, his popularity went up, people came together in many ways, and he got two terms out of it.
I just have no comment, here. If there was ever a place for a roll eyes Graelim, it would be here.
RangerDog
-------------------- Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish Posts: 2036 | From: Virginia | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
RangerDog, I'm sorry. This nightmare will never go away. I cannot imagine what you and so many more went through. You must relive it frequently. *hugs*
-------------------- "This air we're breathing. Oxygen, isn't it?"~I’mNotDedalus, impersonating Vincent D’Onofrio.|"Sometimes trying to communicate can be like walking through a minefield."~wanderwoman "Give people a break. It's not easy doing a life."~Joshua Halberstam Posts: 4020 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by btvsrcks: It is funny some of the disdain for the conspiracy theorists (of which I am one) when the current administration has been using brain washing techniques during its entire campaign. And not once did you think you may have been given propaganda that could have been false and been brainwashed to believe it.
Mostly because the government has been doing a piss-poor job of brain-washing and hiding things. The chance that they could successfully hide something this big isn't very high.
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: Yep, it's a design flaw when those are the threats you are designing against.
Aircraft hitting buildings is common enough. Empire State Building took one. A 747 hit a large apartment complex in Holland. There are probably several others. A tall building is more likely to get hit by accident as well.
The Empire State Building was hit by a B-17 (much ligher) going much slower. The Holland crash wasn't until 1992, well after the towers were built. The World Trade Center was designed for a aircraft impact going at landing speeds, not for a fully loaded jumbo jet going at maximum velocity.
quote:None, but I'm still an engineer, and it doesn't take much common sense and weight relations to see that a structure that heavy will not be that affected by a comparatively light object. It's like playing bowling with a beach ball.
If you are an engineer, then you would know that velocity is important too. If you hit a bowling pin with a beach ball going 500 mph, you'd get a strike every time. If size is the only important thing, then go ahead and stand in front of a golf pro before he tees off.
quote:The documentary mentioned above said that the wind load the building was designed to take was over 50 times more than the impact energy of those aircraft.
This maybe true, but that wind load is spread over the entire surface of the building, not concentrated in a tiny area. I (about 250#) can lie down on my stomach with no pain. But when my cat (about 12#) stands in just the right area, it hurts because her paws concentrate all her weight in a small area.
quote:If it was hit by a super tanker, then the impact energy would be a problem. An aircraft would not.
KE = 1/2 m * v2 . A 757 (weight 240,000 lbs) going 500 mph has the same kinetic energy as a ship (displacement tonnage of 285,000 long tons) going 10 mph. According to Wikipedia, the Exxon Valdez has a displacement tonnage of 211,469 tons.
quote:Well, the Swedish nuclear reactors are designed exactly for that scenario, and more. They are able to withstand a direct hit by the largest airliners available.
Yes, but the amount of available office space in a nuclear reactor is somewhat limited. You might as well compare how well a M1-A1 Abrams and a Volvo do in a car crash.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: One thing that's clear is that something was different in the construction from every other sky scraper that has been on fire, as they withstood it without problem, in one case over 24 hours of fire.
The fact the WTC towers were very different in construction from nearly every other skyscraper is covered in great detail in the official reports on the collapse and almost any pre-9/11 documentary on the towers.
That you mention this with either a sarcastic or clever tone is a little surprising because you mention in other posts that you read the official reports.
-------------------- Thinking about New England / missing old Japan Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing I don't get about the "it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon" claim. Why? Why fake a plane crash especially if it's so easily shown to be false? Use an old Soviet or Eastern Bloc missile and call it that. If that means difficulty tying it in with the WTC attack, then why do it at all? Why was it so important to have an attack on the Pentagon at that time on that day and for it to appear to be a plane crash? It just would serve no purpose at all to do it that way.
pinqy
-------------------- Don't Forget! Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming! Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by pinqy: Here's the thing I don't get about the "it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon" claim. Why? Why fake a plane crash especially if it's so easily shown to be false? Use an old Soviet or Eastern Bloc missile and call it that. If that means difficulty tying it in with the WTC attack, then why do it at all? Why was it so important to have an attack on the Pentagon at that time on that day and for it to appear to be a plane crash? It just would serve no purpose at all to do it that way.
Just to add to that, why hijack two planes to crash into the WTC, then use a missile to attack the Pentagon and claim it was a plane? You've already used two other planes (three if you include United 93). Why the elaborate plan with a missile-called-plane? Isn't that needlessly complicated?
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[flame]](graemlins/flame.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
