9/11 Third Tower Mystery 'Solved'

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Talk about backing it up in your next post if you will, but untill you show me your degree in structural engineering, I'm gonna have to assume that when you make rediculous comments like this, that you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about.

And when you walk among and study the steel of (oh right there isn't any) of the towers I will believe you.

P.S. Spelling counts. Especially for 'scientists or engineers'.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Dan02

:Facepalm:

Seriously you quote the story and don't even bother to check out the graphics? let me help with it.



Looks like a few more then MAYBE 2 storys. Further more those new pictures show significant structural damage in addition to massive raging infernos.

Its no wonder people don't see significant damage though when the only pictures we see are of the north side away from the WTC. Heres a picture taken from another angle and you can see on the SW corner there is some pretty severe structural damage.

OH, I KNOW the graphics. Like many of the things governments do, they don't match the truth.

Man made graphics. Awesome. No way they could be used to influence ones argument.

There have never been government slides, presentations, illustrations, indicating anything other then the truth. I must have missed the whole cold war.

I like the actual pictures, both your last one, and ones previous, and I will admit I'm getting back into re-evaluating my thinking. That is where truth will be found. And as such, I go by what I saw, what I can believe, and what makes common sense. What can be explained beyond a shadow of a doubt, and what I see in real life.

But don't give me crap graphics on 'what probably happened' cause I'll just give you mine. (Excluding your picture)

Why are there no steel samples? Why had this never happened before in history? Why was both the construction of WTC7 soft to this type of fire, and the fire of WTC so unnatural?

If the goverment wants to prove their point, why restrict access, and most importantly, materials?

BY THIS OWN REPORT, they say they had no access to the steel.

Why restrict that to prove your point?

EDIT: And even by your fancy government graphics, 12 floors of fire should not do that amount of damage, in that short of time, to that type of building. Buildings are built to withstand infernos. If a few floors would melt them down, we'd see that a lot more building falling. Which we don't. Heck. we'd see that period. Which we don't.

We do not. We have not ever EVER seen that before and after this.

Common sense. Observation.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Since some people don't 'get it.....I'll put it into simple English.

Simply put:

1) Each structure sustained a high speed impact from a large airliner. This caused: A) Severe structural damage including the severing of exterior and core columns. B) Stripping of fireproofing material from floor trusses. C) Large fires starting simultaneously across multiple floors.

2) Fed by the jet fuel fires, and supported by the wind feeding into the gaping hole in each tower, the fires igniting the building contents, resulting in an inferno spreading across multiple floors.

3) The badly damaged, and unprotected floor trusses began to soften in the heat, sagging as they did so.

4) The sagging trusses pulled the exterior columns of the towers inwards across an entire face.

5) With additional loading on the exterior columns due to other severed columns, and increasing lateral loading due to bowing, the exterior columns failed across an entire face of each building.

6) The upper structure twisted and fell through the destroyed impact floors, hitting the first fully intact floor with 10 GJ (WTC1) or 30 GJ (WTC2) of energy. It failed virtually instantly, adding its own weight to the mass falling on the next floor.

7) The floor mass collapsed down inside the tube created by the exterior columns.

8) The force of the collapse forced exterior columns below the impact point outwards, peeling them away from the structure in multi-story sections.

9) The debris fell to the ground, leaving the badly damage core standing to at least its height. 10) The core section, unable to stand on its own, collapses.

Okay?

Occam's Razor...

No not okay. In fact 1B is the beginning of the (your stories) problems.

That would occur in an isolated area only, if at all.

I could go on, but why bother. (Fuel doesn't burn that hot, no building ever collapsed under those conditions) You like to tow the party line. And the various government sponsored educational programs they paid for.

As I said. Just follow the money. In all of history you get your best example and your truest story by just following the money (or power built on money).

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Occam's Razor...

No not okay. In fact 1B is the beginning of the (your stories) problems.

That would occur in an isolated area only, if at all.

I could go on, but why bother. (Fuel doesn't burn that hot, no building ever collapsed under those conditions) You like to tow the party line. And the various government sponsored educational programs they paid for.

Now timeout, the person with the elaborate conspiracy theory is trying to pull the Occam's Razor card????

As for fuel not burning that hot, well you're right in that it doesn't burn to the melting point of steel(around 1500-1700 IIRC) but it does burn at over 1000, now i am in a hurry to go to work so i can't find a link, but at 800 degrees i believe it is, steel is estimated to only have about 50% of its structural strength left. The point being you don't need to heat steel to the point of melting to cause catastrophic failure.

And think about it, a 8+ hour raging inferno across 12+ floors, with little to no attempts to extinguish the fire and significant structural damage to the base of the building, yes WTC 7 was supposedly the first steel building feld by fire, but has any other building come close to those type of stresses?

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Now timeout, the person with the elaborate conspiracy theory is trying to pull the Occam's Razor card????

As for fuel not burning that hot, well you're right in that it doesn't burn to the melting point of steel(around 1500-1700 IIRC) but it does burn at over 1000, now i am in a hurry to go to work so i can't find a link, but at 800 degrees i believe it is, steel is estimated to only have about 50% of its structural strength left. The point being you don't need to heat steel to the point of melting to cause catastrophic failure.

And think about it, a 8+ hour raging inferno across 12+ floors, with little to no attempts to extinguish the fire and significant structural damage to the base of the building, yes WTC 7 was supposedly the first steel building feld by fire, but has any other building come close to those type of stresses?

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.
...
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

Burnators' post(s) early in the thread are excellent. Links are supplied to scientific accounts of the collapses (including the info above) and he breaks things down very well.

Some people/posters love conspiracy theories like they love mystery novels. The problems start when they refuse to acknowledge the gaping holes in their conspiracy because theyre busy trying to punch tiny holes in scientific/engineering data.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Occam's Razor...

No not okay. In fact 1B is the beginning of the (your stories) problems.

That would occur in an isolated area only, if at all.

I could go on, but why bother. (Fuel doesn't burn that hot, no building ever collapsed under those conditions) You like to tow the party line. And the various government sponsored educational programs they paid for.

As I said. Just follow the money. In all of history you get your best example and your truest story by just following the money (or power built on money).

Yes the 1B did happen, and yes 'jet' fuel does burn that hot.

Your argument is ridiculous. All you're doing is coming here like a 10 year old and telling everyone else that we're just 'towing the party line' and 'accepting the official story'....and somehow, somewhere you have facts to back up your theory that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

I could prove you wrong, but hey, what the point, considering you'll just discount every SINGLE person who has EVER investigated the attacks, and came to the exact same conclusion every other sane and normal person did. That the airplanes brought the towers done.

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/...Sozen.WTC.html

As for the fireproofing material being stripped, here are a bunch of articles that say the exact same thing.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...Simulation.php

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A9679C8B63

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A9679C8B63

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r..._april0505.htm

I could go on, and on, but hey, whats the point. Your argument will be the same thing. Discount every single structural engineer who investigated the collapse, and believe idiots like Alex Jones and the ######s who did Loose Change.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.
...
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

Burnators' post(s) early in the thread are excellent. Links are supplied to scientific accounts of the collapses (including the info above) and he breaks things down very well.

Some people/posters love conspiracy theories like they love mystery novels. The problems start when they refuse to acknowledge the gaping holes in their conspiracy because theyre busy trying to punch tiny holes in scientific/engineering data.

Why bother with the facts?

Some people will discount science and reason in the face of conspiracy and ridiculous theories everytime.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dan02

now i am in a hurry to go to work so i can't find a link, but at 800 degrees i believe it is, steel is estimated to only have about 50% of its structural strength left. The point being you don't need to heat steel to the point of melting to cause catastrophic failure.

Why bother finding anything? Any link, any report, and study, and investigation.

They're all part of a big conspiracy by that idiot Bush and his cronies, who despite being so stupid that they forgot to plant WMD in Iraq prior to invading, WERE smart enough to keep thousands of people quiet, and bring down the WTCs with a controlled demolition.

Lets not even go talk to the guys who bring down buildings for a living....hell, they don't know a frickin' thing. Alex Jones knows SO much better.

[worth]

Just to interject for a moment, you're both on extremes of the argument.

There are anomalies in the official version. I don't think anyone can deny that. Can anyone prove without a doubt that it was a false flag operation? I don't think so at this point. There are valid opinions on either side of the argument, and to say that only stupid people or crazy people think otherwise of the official story is wrong.

There are plenty of "smart", with degrees and schooling in varying fields who have differing opinions.

This is certainly not a black and white issue. There have been questions raised that need critical examination, and there are people asking the questions such as former members of parliament of various countries as well as members of previous US governments.

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?...d=37&Itemid=35

http://stj911.org/members/index.html

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Daradon

And when you walk among and study the steel of (oh right there isn't any) of the towers I will believe you.

P.S. Spelling counts. Especially for 'scientists or engineers'.

Yeah, I never said I was there, but I'm also not making outrageous claims about things that I have no experience in and have absolutly ZERO training in. You flat out said that there was no way that there was engough structrual damage to bring the towers down, but you are completely unqualified to make that assessment. So it looks like a pretty awesome mix of arrogance and ignorance to go around making that claim based on zero qualifications and VERY limited information.

And for the record, spelling doesn't cout a lick for engineers.
I can tell you that not once in my schooling or career as an engineer have marks ever been taken away for poor spelling. But good job trying to deflect the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about by pointing out my poor spelling.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.
...
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

Burnators' post(s) early in the thread are excellent. Links are supplied to scientific accounts of the collapses (including the info above) and he breaks things down very well.

Some people/posters love conspiracy theories like they love mystery novels. The problems start when they refuse to acknowledge the gaping holes in their conspiracy because theyre busy trying to punch tiny holes in scientific/engineering data, with a complete misunderstanding and lack of expertise in the science that they claim to be false.

Just added a little at the end for clarity.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by worth

Just to interject for a moment, you're both on extremes of the argument.

By saying that the planes flying into the towers eventually caused them to collapse, what extreme side of the argument am I on?

You know DAMN well that there is no factual evidence that the towers fell through controlled demolition.

There are only a bunch of conspiracy theorists who ignore what every single investigation into the events have proven.

[worth]

You're going to the extreme by basically stating that no intelligent person could possibly believe in a conspiracy or could question what happened, and those that do are crazy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by worth

You're going to the extreme by basically stating that no intelligent person could possibly believe in a conspiracy or could question what happened, and those that do are crazy.

Don't get me wrong, I question a lot of the stuff that happened that day too....etc, etc....but it is FACT that the towers were NOT brought down by controlled demolition, but by the planes hitting the towers. I already explained in very basic form up above what happened. That is FACT.

Is someone crazy if they're just going to discount every shred of evidence that exists regarding the collapse of the towers, and just accuse other people of 'towing the party line'...?

You tell me.

[worth]

I don't think anyone is "discounting every shred of evidence", but there are people asking questions about certain anomalies, as I stated before. There are many facts that can be verified. For someone to discount certain fact would be silly. However there are issues that are somewhat clouded, and for someone to question those issues I don't think is a problem at all. And those people don't necessarily have to subscribe to the idea that everyone is just towing the party line, as you put it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by worth

You're going to the extreme by basically stating that no intelligent person could possibly believe in a conspiracy or could question what happened, and those that do are crazy.

I think the biggest problem with this debate is that one line of explanations for the events of Sept 11 that lies in the realm of an extreme outlier probabilities gets so much attention. Sure the possibility of a conspiracy exists, but that should not overshadow the fact that an absence of answers (or what's deemed to be acceptable answers) doesn't necessarily support any of specific conspiracy theories. Also whenever you get laypeople asking questions about highly technical engineering topics, the answers given by the investigating engineers most likely will not be properly understood by said laypeople. Thus this lack of comprehension can serve to fuel the 'debate.'

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Why are there no steel samples? Why had this never happened before in history? Why was both the construction of WTC7 soft to this type of fire, and the fire of WTC so unnatural?

If the goverment wants to prove their point, why restrict access, and most importantly, materials?

BY THIS OWN REPORT, they say they had no access to the steel.

Why restrict that to prove your point?

False dichotomy. Pointing out flaws in the study does not support your theory that it was a controlled demolition. You have arbitrarily decided that they are only two possible causes of the collapse, either the government story or the government did it. If you think it was anything other than structural damage and fire you have to provide evidence supporting that. Which you haven't.

EDIT: And even by your fancy government graphics, 12 floors of fire should not do that amount of damage, in that short of time, to that type of building. Buildings are built to withstand infernos. If a few floors would melt them down, we'd see that a lot more building falling. Which we don't. Heck. we'd see that period. Which we don't.

We do not. We have not ever EVER seen that before and after this.

Common sense. Observation.

*sigh*

Buildings are not built to withstand a twelve floor fire burning for seven hours WITH severe structural damage. Steel performs extremely poor in a fire, that's why it is coated with fireproofing. But don't let that name fool you. There is nothing you can economically put on steel to keep it fireproofed indefinitely. That fireproofing is only good for a couple of hours at most. When the steel is exposed to the fire it is extremely prone to weakening.

Saying that no buildings have ever fallen to fire is comparing apples to oranges. The towers were hit with planes. WTC7 has severe structural damage. It's those two factors that were the major cause of the collapse. But if you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, please post it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Occam's Razor...

I don't think that's something you want to be saying when you are supporting the conspiracy argument.

"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

The alleged 9/11 conspiracy would be the most elaborate solution possible. You are on the complete opposite side of Occam's razor.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by worth

I don't think anyone is "discounting every shred of evidence", but there are people asking questions about certain anomalies, as I stated before. There are many facts that can be verified. For someone to discount certain fact would be silly. However there are issues that are somewhat clouded, and for someone to question those issues I don't think is a problem at all. And those people don't necessarily have to subscribe to the idea that everyone is just towing the party line, as you put it.

Like what? I haven't read anything by the conspiracy side that wasn't easily disproven or a logical fallacy.

[worth]

I should preface this by saying i'm not a "Conspiracy Theorist". I really don't know what happened on that day, but i'm not about to say that the US government took the buildings down. I believe that it could be a possibility, but I also believe that the official story is a possibility as well.

The following are some of the main anomolies to happen that day and leading up to the events. There are many more than this but these are some of the main ones. For more information all you have to do is google the particular issue.

• Large put options on American Airlines and United Airlines weeks before the attacks (Link)
• Certain people stopping flying commercial airlines before attack (Ashcroft)
• People being warned not to fly commercial airlines before the attack (Willie Brown)
• NORAD response timeline (Link)
• Multiple NORAD wargames at the time of the attacks (Link)
• The fact the Pentagon was left undefended after the attacks started. The Pentagon is 10 miles from Andrews AFB.
• It has been stated that the type of pilot required to hit the Pentagon at the speed it did would be a very experienced one.
• Black Box contents on all 4 panes have never been released
• Video evidence of plane hitting Pentagon not released (with exception of that blurry video we all saw.) It should be noted that I myself do in fact believe a plane hit the pentagon as was stated in the official version.
• Privatization of WTC weeks before the attack (Link)
• Numerous reports of explosions from Firefighters inside the buildings (Link)
• Certain teams of investigators being denied access to the site after the attacks
• The immediate removal of steel to China for disposal