Do you believe planes brought down the WTC?

[JoetheDictator]

I still can't believe that there is a person who honestly believes that 9-11 was a conspiracy.

I know what you mean. At most the conspiracy was neglect to take heed of several years of documented warnings and go after OBL before hand.

[JoetheDictator]

I think she is hot

So that's petals. :D

[35Pete]

Will the mods ignore similar comments made previously by the borg to me while they censure me for this? You bet, oh well its a privately owned board. Too bad some of us can't take what we dish out.

Come on man. Knock it off. I'm not going to excuse anything based on who is the target. You know that. Now please stop whining in public. That really pisses me off.

[TheCrystalBall]

I still can't believe that there is a person who honestly believes that 9-11 was a conspiracy.

I still can't believe upstart and sukie were and still are against any kind of investigation into 9/11.

[JoetheDictator]

Come on man. Knock it off. I'm not going to excuse anything based on who is the target. You know that. Now please stop whining in public. That really pisses me off.

Fine, but I do reserve the right to strike back.

[coastal]

I still can't believe that there is a person who honestly believes that 9-11 was a conspiracy.

I think we've all heard you now.

Take a seat and learn something.



This is a FEMA study, linked off of a government website!!!!!! This is a pdf article link, so take the time to read it.

It basically says that oxidation and sulfidation is what caused the steel to fail. They don't know where the sulfer came from.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxC.pdf

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if
any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."

[coastal]

I still can't believe upstart and sukie were and still are against any kind of investigation into 9/11.

Check out the government study Chimp.

The FEMA study says it doesn't know how a chemical that caused the steel to fail got there.

Amazing, huh?

[JoetheDictator]

Check out the government study Chimp.

The FEMA study says it doesn't know how a chemical that caused the steel to fail got there.

Amazing, huh?

chemical reaction, not justifying the government because I don't think they are being completely honest but IMHO they are not slick enough to pull off a coverup without someone in MAINSTREAM authenticable authoritative academia and press finding out. That being said, ain't it bad enough that they would know this was coming and did nothing to stop or preempt it?

[sukie]

To me this is most compelling evidence of a conspiracy and needs to be evaluated further within our government and for all to participate.



from post one. NO INVESTIGATION REQUIRED. The families don't deserve it and the government should not fund it. (/11 commission report was not a WTC investigation. Chimp where is my support for Uppy (from another thread) for no investigation? Don't look to hard... it doesn't exsist.

[Ralonzo]

No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

Hugo Chavez told me it was George Bush.

[TheCrystalBall]

To me this is most compelling evidence of a conspiracy and needs to be evaluated further within our government and for all to participate.



from thread one. NO INVESTIGATION REQUIRED. The families don't deserve it and the government should not fund it. (/11 commission report was not a WTC investigation.

What did you say? Can you repeat it? I couldn't hear over the sound of your backpeddling.

[JoetheDictator]

Hugo Chavez told me it was George Bush.

don't give em ideas.

[coastal]

A little something about Jonathan Barnett who helped author the government study for FEMA...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=jonathan_barnett

Jonathan Barnett participated in the following events as an activeparticipant:
September 16-23, 2001: Images of Ground Zero Show Thermal Hot Spots Thermal hot spots detected by satellite on September 16, 2001. Red and orange indicate the hottest locations. The World Trade Center twin tower footprint is in the lower center and the center of World Trade Center Building 7 is in the upper right. [Source: USGS]
In response to requests from the Environmental Protection Agency, through the US Geological Survey, NASA flies a plane over the site of the WTC complex, equipped with a remote sensing instrument called AVIRIS. AVIRIS is able to remotely record the near-infrared signature of heat. Analysis of the data it collects indicates temperatures at Ground Zero of above 800 degrees Fahrenheit, with some areas above 1,300 degrees. On September 16, dozens of “hot spots” are seen, but by September 23, only four or five remain. [US Geological Survey, 10/2002 ; US Geological Survey, 11/27/2001] Robert Shaler, the scientist who leads the forensic examination by the New York City medical examiner’s office to identify 9/11 victims, later will state that the “DNA in the bodies” of WTC victims “was in pretty bad shape. These bones were exposed to extreme temperatures.” [US News and World Report, 12/5/2005] Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert, later will say, “There are pieces of steel being pulled out [of the WTC rubble] that are still cherry red. It’s like the charcoal that you put in your grill. ... You light it and it stays hot.” [New York Daily News, 11/1/2001] And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a member of FEMA’s WTC investigation team, will describe steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures. [New York Times, 11/29/2001] Despite the WTC rubble being pumped with an almost constant jet of water, eventually totaling thousands of gallons, almost 12 weeks after 9/11 at least one fire is still burning, making it the longest-burning structural fire in history. [New Scientist, 12/3/2001; CBS News, 12/19/2001] As well as the hot spots, numerous witnesses describe"

...more...

[K-Gun]

Hugo Chavez told me it was George Bush.

Dick Cheney told me it was Saddam Hussein.

[coastal]

Hugo Chavez told me it was George Bush.

Thanks for this brilliant contribution.

[comericatigers]

Why is this debate even lasting this long--old hat. There is no conspiracy!

But I did hear George Bush knew a few hours in advance about the attacks but he didn't do anything about it because he wanted and excuse to fight the war on terror and go to war with Iraq.--Sound familiar

[emo]

here is all the evidence I need to know it wasn't the government. they were able to pull this off yet can't protect foley? sorry I'm not buying it

[sukie]

What did you say? Can you repeat it? I couldn't hear over the sound of your backpeddling.

No back peddling until you show my history of pedaling forward. You can admit you err. It's refreshing and kinda cleansing.

[JoetheDictator]

here is all the evidence I need to know it wasn't the government. they were able to pull this off yet can't protect foley? sorry I'm not buying it

Exactly, the only conspiracy and coverup is the government knew about it in advance and out of sheer incompetence was unable to prevent a very preventable attack. I don't just blame the BA, I blame all levels of government from the Whitehouse to airport security and INS agents who let these kids stay here with illegal and improper documentation get into the country and then get on planes even when they were already on the terror watch lists.

[coastal]

here is all the evidence I need to know it wasn't the government. they were able to pull this off yet can't protect foley? sorry I'm not buying it

Care to comment on the government study where they point out where it's "unclear" where the chemical came from that melted the steel?

[JoetheDictator]

Care to comment on the government study where they point out where it's "unclear" where the chemical came from that melted the steel?

chemical bonds made from a mixture of burning debris? Don't know.

[Mouldsie]

i think they definately werent upset that it happened.


which was/is sick enough for me to vote them out no matter who they run against

[35Pete]

i think they definately werent upset that it happened.


which was/is sick enough for me to vote them out no matter who they run against

I am quite impressed that you can read into their hearts.

Wanna share how?

[coastal]

I am quite impressed that you can read into their hearts.

Wanna share how?

He could feel the disruption in their heart chakra...

:puh:

[Al Davis]

I give up on this whole topic, I tried. Some people have their mind made up no matter what.

The Alex jones bashers, I'm sure have not seen any of his movies or anything. He supports a simple concept, security doesn't bring freedom, it brings tyranny. Terrorism is being used as an excuse to up the police state and slowly take away our freedoms.

Infowars.com, check out the site for a alternate news source. If you think its bullshit, good for you, but theres no better way of finding the truth than after hearing both sides of it. yes, alex Jones is somewhat crzy, but when you research this stuff, and start finding out the supposed "truth", you slowly become crazy, and somewhat possesed getting this information out.

To be honest with you people, I'm losing my mind...help

[admarc]

Admarc, I appreciate the thoughtful post.

Have you seen Dr. Jones' lecture? Many of his arguments seem logical to a layman, what are your thoughts on his presentation?

A few points he makes: the length of time required for the domino effect of each floor collapsing into the next should take longer than a freefall, but the video footage doesn't seem to support that explanation.

The info on the fire temperature and it's effect on steel was also interesting.

I found the most interesting part the molten steel in the "basement".

Your comments would be appreciated. If you need a link I'll dig one up.

Jimmi, I haven't seen the Dr. Jones lecture in its entirety. I'll take a look when I get the chance and comment on it.

One quick distinction with the collapse sequence I am suggesting happened, which is largely based on the NIST investigation and my own observations and research, with the domino or progressive collapse theory. I do not believe the building collapased progressively(domino effect.) I believe the building collapsed in a virtual free fall due to the overwhelming mass of the upper portion of the towers which collapsed at once. That mass effectively smashed through the floors below with such energy (again see Pete's calculations) that each individual floor structure offered very little resistence to slow the free falling mass down. Think house of cards that you drop a bowling ball on instead of house of cards that collapses one flooor after another progressively.

The building failed first at the floors of impact unleashing the energy of the entirety of the mass of the floors above. That mass went into free fall and smashed the floors below one by one in rapid succession.

From the NIST (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) report:

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.

I'll get back to you to answer the rest of your questions after I look at the lecture.

In the mean time take a look at the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/)on line. They have an excellent fact sheet (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)that addresses many of the questions that have been raised. The report itself is in PDF format and is not that user friendly.

[admarc]

Don't start off the arguement by insuiating that I have a Bruce J Ismay complex.

This sort of beginning comes off as being a bit disingenuous.

So then... the WTC buildings were primarily elastic on the outside and rigid on the inside. Although the rigid structure was reinforced with elastic steel. I presume this is a way of cheating the poor tensile strength of concrete. Without the rebar, if one part fails, then the whole will fail. With rebar you are in essence creating many smaller segments where if one segment fails, the other will not? Also by tying together those segments with long strands of rebar, you allow the whole structure to carry the burden of those compressive forces?

I'm with you.

Says who? I'm sure you are going to get there, but again... just throwing this in the middle of the discussion is like a scientist just throwing his conclusions in the middle of the hypothesis just to remind you of where you are going.

Please do.

. Of the elastic portion of the building.

When the elastic beams and a small portion of the rigid interior were removed or destroyed, were the loads below that on both the elastic portion of the building and the nonelastic portion then evenly distributed?

This is all about the elastic portion of the building and there has been much discussion about the how the fire wasn't hot enough to damage the laod bearing memebrs present. Not just that, but the fire from the fuel was burned off in a realtively short period of time.

This is your conclusion and doesn't wash with me at all. The elastic portion of the building was damaged on one side and so was a small portion of the rigid interior column. It would make sense to me that the compressive forces would have increased on that side of the building and the stretching forces would have increased on the other side of the building. This is where a good study of the steel found at the site would be not only easy but telling.

They had the shit labelled. Look at the steel to see if it was being stretched or compressed and in what direction.

They did it with the Titanic. Why can't they do the same with the WTC.

Why aren't they doing it for all to see?

Air caused that and the entire contents of the building including steel and concrete to go reocketing outwards and upwards?

Again... show me where an indepth metalurgical analysis of all the beams found at the site has been done.



You haven't sold me and neither has the 9/11 commision.

I am not trying to sell anybody anything, I am laying out my opinion of how and why the WTC towers collapsed. There has been an intensive study of the collapse of the towers conducted and I widely agree with the findings in the report. I am not speaking of the 9/11 commission report, which I believe was a joke. I am speaking about the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a government agency charged with setting industry standards. They have done an exhaustive multi year investigation into the collapse of the WTC buildings with the intent of making suggestions to improve building codes. They have issued final reports on the collapse of WTC 1 & WTC 2. They also have recently released a Fact sheet (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) addressing many of the questions raised by those who believe that something besides air planes and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists brought down the twin towers.

In depth metallurgical analysis of the steel beams and columns found at the site was part of the investigation.

I am not suggesting the puffs of air and smoke that where visible were responsible for steel beams being thrown out and up from the building. I am suggesting since steel has a high modulus of elasticity, when the building collapsed the beams and columns deflected, when they snapped free at their connections the built up energy would have been suddenly released and they would be sprung outward in the opposite direction.

Take a look at how these columns were bent and imagine the moment they snapped free.

http://wtc.nist.gov/images/DSCN0941_hires.jpg


Their final report for WTC 7 is due out in the spring, but they have released an interim report that puts forth a plausible scenario. They will investigate the possibility of the existence of thermite and different explosion hypothesis.

Here are some clips from the fact sheet that address some of your questions (and Jimmi's):

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.

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.



Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

[35Pete]

What an excellent, reasonable, and collected explanation admarc.

Very nice.

:clapper:

[Ralonzo]

Admarc, you have way more patience and faith in the willingness of your fellow Range members to listen to reason than I do. Or maybe I just had it extruded from me by their anacondas of vapidness, bloviation, and muckraking.

[Ralonzo]

Thanks for this brilliant contribution.

I wonder if you, who thinks Pat Tillman was stupid for going to "Iraq" (http://www.buffalorange.com/showpost.php?p=1435671&postcount=51), have any inkling of what I was referencing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IoCmmm2UG0).

[Al Davis]

What an excellent, reasonable, and collected explanation admarc.

Very nice.

:clapper:

I agree, but if what he's saying is true, it doesn't eliminate the possibility that the govt had foreknowledge of the events that took place, and made the decision not to stop it, because the potentially stood to gain. This is the real issue, a possible false flag tactic. Google "operation north woods" if you doubt the government would do anything this terrible.

[Mouldsie]

I am quite impressed that you can read into their hearts.

Wanna share how?
1) I know people
2) They have hate in their hearts
3) The events following 9/11
4) The way they've taken advantage of the situation
5) Previous comments regarding possible terrorist strikes and the necessity of one to carry out their military plans. (they = neocons)

[JoetheDictator]

i think they definately werent upset that it happened.


which was/is sick enough for me to vote them out no matter who they run against

I agree

[35Pete]

1) I know people
2) They have hate in their hearts
3) The events following 9/11
4) The way they've taken advantage of the situation
5) Previous comments regarding possible terrorist strikes and the necessity of one to carry out their military plans. (they = neocons)

Ohh...OK.

LOL

Items 1 and 2 are hysterical. Especially #1 Miss Cleo.

[Mouldsie]

ok fine
3-5 are spot on


60% beats 40%
:p

[coastal]

What an excellent, reasonable, and collected explanation admarc.

Very nice.

:clapper:

Bwahahahahahahaha!

He parroted the findings of an NIST investigation.

I can link too in lieu of providing an arguement from my own mind...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html

I've yet to see someone explain in layman's terms why two 100+ story steel and concrete skyscrapers with assymetric damage fell straight down and basically turned to dust in a matter of seconds.

Oh. That's right.

Really heavy shit fell on it.

[uppy]

Bwahahahahahahaha!

He parroted the findings of an NIST investigation.

I can link too in lieu of providing an arguement from my own mind...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html

I've yet to see someone explain in layman's terms why two 100+ story steel and concrete skyscrapers with assymetric damage fell straight down and basically turned to dust in a matter of seconds.

Oh. That's right.

Really heavy shit fell on it.

You will never accept the facts....you have tasted the Koolaid and fond it

to your liking.

[coastal]

Here's my favorite part...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html#details

"Conclusion: Assuming the premise of the official explanation, the total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were the largest, most unexpected, and least understood failures of engineered steel structures in the history of the world. NIST's Report, like FEMA's 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn't explain them at all. Flatly asserting that "global collapse" inevitably follows "collapse initiation," the Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation -- an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages. Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:

The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
Once initiated, the collapses proceded to total collapses.

NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, which is indefensible. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:

That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions. In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:


Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetrically in all directions.
Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.
Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.

What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?

NIST avoids asking this and other questions by implying that they don't exist. It uses the false assertion that partial collapse will inevitably lead to total collapse (couched in the ill-defined terms of "column instability," "global instability," "collapse initiation," and "global collapse") to imply that nothing about the actual collapses is worth considering.

To shield the reader from the evidence of controlled demolition, NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety. It calls its event narrative of each Tower, which starts with the jet impact and ends at the point that "collapse ensued," the "probable collapse sequence," but it is neither probable nor a collapse sequence.

NIST's misleadingly named "probable collapse sequence" is a mirage, masking the explosive reality of the collapses with a cinematic account of the crashes and fires. NIST's theory stops at the moment that the "upper building section began to move downwards," thus avoiding the longer timeline of the truss-failure theory and any overlap with the time span in which the demolition-like features appear. Despite NIST's theory being even more incredible than its predecessors (with spreading "column instability" triggering "global collapse" in an instant) it works better as a mirage because its timelines stop short of the collapses.

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail. Its authors should admit that they have failed to explain why and how the Towers collapsed, and should call for an investigation that will address rather than avoid the issue."


...more...

[35Pete]

I agree, but if what he's saying is true, it doesn't eliminate the possibility that the govt had foreknowledge of the events that took place, and made the decision not to stop it, because the potentially stood to gain. This is the real issue, a possible false flag tactic. Google "operation north woods" if you doubt the government would do anything this terrible.

Al. No offense but I have a real problem with this.

First the government did it. Admarc comes out (he is a professional architect) and trashes that angle.

Now it seems like it is time for "Plan B". They knew about it but did nothing to stop it.

See why this bothers me?

[shiva2999]

Think house of cards that you drop a bowling ball on instead of house of cards that collapses one flooor after another progressively.

LOL!

Why stop there?

Why not think of an anvil that you drop on a house of cards?

Or how about a ship anchor that you drop on a house of cards?

Or how about an M1 Abrams tank you drop on a house of cards?

Once again with the glib analogies.

Those floors above the impact zone, contrary to what appeared as a crumbling structure, actually had the density of depleted uranium, don't you know!

Then when you throw in twenty floors of desks, rugs and computers, it's a wonder the structure didn't plow straight through the globe and pop out in China!

[г]

http://www.hollywoodrag.com/images/uploads/richard_simmons_bulging_thumb.jpg

Or Richard Simmons could drop a ball on the WTC ?

[shiva2999]

Take a look at how these columns were bent and imagine the moment they snapped free.

http://wtc.nist.gov/images/DSCN0941_hires.jpg

I did the paper clip experiment.

I straightened one out, bent it like a bow between my fingers and let it go.

Boing!

And guess what?

When I picked up the paper clip, it was straight again!

But then that's what springs do.

You bend them and then they spring back into the original shape!

You don't get any spring effect from a piece of metal that stays bent.

Which is what girders do.

[35Pete]

Interesting coastal. The NIST report had over 170 some private individuals also involved. Are they in on this too?

Or are they just scared shit less of the black helicopters coming in the night if they say anything other than the company line?

[shiva2999]

Interesting coastal. The NIST report had over 170 some private individuals also involved. Are they in on this too?


The NIST's mandate was to come up with an explanation for the official gov't conspiracy theory.

9/11 was a mass homicide.

Did we get a homicide investigation?

Uh uh.

[jimmifli]

Admark and Pete, In Dr. Jones' presentation he talks about the temperature of the fire, if I remember he shows video and pictures with a flame colour and smoke that indicate the fire wouldn't have been hot enough to even weaken the steel. In one video a person is visible and alive in the area near the fire.

I remember Pete said he went back into his textbooks and agreed with the presentation info (not the conclusions). Pete has that changed?

While I'm not thrilled with Dr. Jones, he does offer a legitimate voice to the argument. His findings seemed to be sound and were published in a peer reviewed journal. For me that level of evidence should not be easily dismissed.

[admarc]

I've yet to see someone explain in layman's terms why two 100+ story steel and concrete skyscrapers with assymetric damage fell straight down and basically turned to dust in a matter of seconds.

Oh. That's right.

Really heavy shit fell on it.

You are starting with a false premise. The towers didn't fall straight down, at least not initially. When the collapse sequence initiated it bowed in one direction, then as it went into free fall it fell straight, as you would expect an object in free fall to do.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_collapse4.jpg

The NIST report has sequential pictures showing the tilt, then a straightening out and then the free falling upper tower clearer than this pic, but its PDF.

[coastal]

Interesting coastal. The NIST report had over 170 some private individuals also involved. Are they in on this too?

Or are they just scared shit less of the black helicopters coming in the night if they say anything other than the company line?

They got $20 million for their BS investigation.

You ain't got nothing on these guys with the Hamm radio racket your running.

[coastal]

You are starting with a false premise. The towers didn't fall straight down, at least not initially. When the collapse sequence initiated it bowed in one direction, then as it went into free fall it fell straight, as you would expect an object in free fall to do.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_collapse4.jpg

The NIST report has sequential pictures showing the tilt, then a straightening out and then the free falling upper tower clearer than this pic, but its PDF.

Amazing it didn't deflect off the remaining portion of the tower and take a couple of other buildings with it, huh?

And how about the other one that just said... **** it and came straight down.

[shiva2999]

And how about the other one that just said... **** it and came straight down.

Not only that but the radio tower which was attached to the top of the core started falling first.

[admarc]

Admark and Pete, In Dr. Jones' presentation he talks about the temperature of the fire, if I remember he shows video and pictures with a flame colour and smoke that indicate the fire wouldn't have been hot enough to even weaken the steel. In one video a person is visible and alive in the area near the fire.

I remember Pete said he went back into his textbooks and agreed with the presentation info (not the conclusions). Pete has that changed?

While I'm not thrilled with Dr. Jones, he does offer a legitimate voice to the argument. His findings seemed to be sound and were published in a peer reviewed journal. For me that level of evidence should not be easily dismissed.

I still haven't watched the seminar, sorry, but I think most reports agree and the tests of the recovered steel indicate the temperatures reached 1000 degrees, which is enough to cause the steel to lose a majority of it's strength.

To be honest Jimmi, you don't need to have technical expertise to see that the fire was wide spread and intense if you watch the video or see the pictures.

NIST has pictures of the steel beams and columns clearly with the spray on fire proofing knocked off. This is extremely compelling evidence because the tests showed that the unprotected steel heated at 1000 would be reduced to 10% of its room temperature strength.

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.

[shiva2999]

I still haven't watched the seminar, sorry, but I think most reports agree and the tests of the recovered steel indicate the temperatures reached 1000 degrees, which is enough to cause the steel to lose a majority of it's strength.

Link?

Because I've never seen any tests that indicate any such thing.

[admarc]

Amazing it didn't deflect off the remaining portion of the tower and take a couple of other buildings with it, huh?

And how about the other one that just said... **** it and came straight down.

Deflect? Really Coastal ? You can't be serious. It didn't deflect, it crushed. Watch the video and see it with your own eyes. The structure was designed to resist the static weight of the floors above, it's furniture, the occupants and resist wind loads. It was not designed to resist the moving force of the free falling upper tower mass.

[jimmifli]

I still haven't watched the seminar, sorry, but I think most reports agree and the tests of the recovered steel indicate the temperatures reached 1000 degrees, which is enough to cause the steel to lose a majority of it's strength.

To be honest Jimmi, you don't need to have technical expertise to see that the fire was wide spread and intense if you watch the video or see the pictures.

NIST has pictures of the steel beams and columns clearly with the spray on fire proofing knocked off. This is extremely compelling evidence because the tests showed that the unprotected steel heated at 1000 would be reduced to 10% of its room temperature strength.
That's the point though, the debate isn't really about whether the steel reached very high temperatures. The debate was whether the fire did.

How was the recovered steel tested to determine the temperature? That sounds interesting, at the time of his presentation the beams hadn't been tested.

If you need the link:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Steven_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006/BYU_Professor_Steven_E_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006_911_9-11_Lecture_WTC-7_911TruthSeekers.org.wmv

[TheCrystalBall]

And what about World Trade Center 7?

[shiva2999]

Drop a 50 lb iron ball on the floor from 10 feet and then drop 50 lbs of feathers on the floor from 10 feet.

Which does more damage?

[coastal]

Deflect? Really Coastal ? You can't be serious. It didn't deflect, it crushed. Watch the video and see it with your own eyes. The structure was designed to resist the static weight of the floors above, it's furniture, the occupants and resist wind loads. It was not designed to resist the moving force of the free falling upper tower mass.

path of least resisteance is not through 60+ floors of concrete and steel.

[admarc]

Link?

Because I've never seen any tests that indicate any such thing.

It's in the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm), but naturally you don't believe it so why not look at the link that Coastal posted in this very thread.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=jonathan_barnett

Jonathan Barnett participated in the following events as an activeparticipant:
September 16-23, 2001: Images of Ground Zero Show Thermal Hot Spots Thermal hot spots detected by satellite on September 16, 2001. Red and orange indicate the hottest locations. The World Trade Center twin tower footprint is in the lower center and the center of World Trade Center Building 7 is in the upper right. [Source: USGS]
In response to requests from the Environmental Protection Agency, through the US Geological Survey, NASA flies a plane over the site of the WTC complex, equipped with a remote sensing instrument called AVIRIS. AVIRIS is able to remotely record the near-infrared signature of heat. Analysis of the data it collects indicates temperatures at Ground Zero of above 800 degrees Fahrenheit, with some areas above 1,300 degrees. On September 16, dozens of “hot spots” are seen, but by September 23, only four or five remain. [US Geological Survey, 10/2002 ; US Geological Survey, 11/27/2001] Robert Shaler, the scientist who leads the forensic examination by the New York City medical examiner’s office to identify 9/11 victims, later will state that the “DNA in the bodies” of WTC victims “was in pretty bad shape. These bones were exposed to extreme temperatures.”

[deconstruction]

Apparently not enough people have seen the south park on this. Look, give it up. What happened, happened. This energy could be used towards something useful . . . really.

[shiva2999]

path of least resisteance is not through 60+ floors of concrete and steel.

I did an episode of Lonesome Dove where a townie was shot off a 50' water tower.

Know what the stunt men used to break his fall?

Four layers of 2'x2'x2' empty cardboard boxes.

A 175 lb man free falls 40+ feet and then is gently cushioned by paper and air.

Using the WTC theory he should be dead.

[admarc]

path of least resisteance is not through 60+ floors of concrete and steel.

Do you think the tower mass knew there were sixty floors below it or did it do what any good team in need of a winning streak would do, take it one step at a time.

Crush one floor, no problem, then crush the next floor, no problem.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The mass couldn't fly, it fell. The structural support of each floor was completely unable to slow down the free falling chunk of tower.

I know this may be hard to conceive since nothing like this ever happened before, but I don't know how many different ways I can say the weight of the upper tower mass in motion was too much for the individual floor supports to resist. The mass smashed each floor one after the other.

[shiva2999]

It's in the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm), but naturally you don't believe it so why not look at the link that Coastal posted in this very thread.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=jonathan_barnett

Circular logic.

Hot spots under ground zero indicate temperatures of up to 1300 degrees C.

Steel loses it's strength at 1000 degrees C.

Therefore the fires were 1000+ degrees C.

C'mon.

[admarc]

That's the point though, the debate isn't really about whether the steel reached very high temperatures. The debate was whether the fire did.

How was the recovered steel tested to determine the temperature? That sounds interesting, at the time of his presentation the beams hadn't been tested.

If you need the link:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Steven_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006/BYU_Professor_Steven_E_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006_911_9-11_Lecture_WTC-7_911TruthSeekers.org.wmv

Jimmi, I'll track down the page in the NIST report that showed the steel cross sections for you tomorrow. The document is anightmare to work through in PDF and I promise to watch the seminar.

I'm done for the night though, goodnight guys !

[admarc]

And what about World Trade Center 7?


The NIST widened their investigation to see if thermite was present and to explore different explosion theories. They are scheduled to release the final report in the spring and I will post it here and comment on it when it is.

[shiva2999]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunt

The Man Who Would Be King
A major character dies when the rope bridge he is standing on is cut. British stuntman Joe Powell volunteered for the stunt after the rest of the stuntmen came down with a mysterious ailment. He fell 80 feet onto cardboard boxes balanced on the edge of a ravine.

[admarc]

Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm

[jimmifli]

Jimmi, I'll track down the page in the NIST report that showed the steel cross sections for you tomorrow. The document is anightmare to work through in PDF and I promise to watch the seminar.

I'm done for the night though, goodnight guys !
I honestly appreciate the effort. 300 plus posts in this thread with at least 250 of them adding nothing. Your effort is appreciated.

[anEinherjer]

I just find it astonishing that we're going through all of this.

Again.


path of least resisteance is not through 60+ floors of concrete and steel.

Sorry to say, but you might want to go back and take physics 101 again, and this time pay very close attention to the chapter on momentum.

It's really pretty simple, and here's a little experiment you can do at home: Get a little dixie cup - you know, one of the little ones you use in a bathroom (not the big kind you put coffee in when you're at work). Hold a brick about 6 inches above it, and drop the brick straight down.

The dixie cup doesn't "deflect".

[anEinherjer]

I personally appreciate admarc's patient reiteration of facts that he's produced over and over again. I'd bet he's been annoyed and tossed off a few ad hominems along the way, but I haven't seen them - he's one of the only people in this whole discussion topic that manages to keep his cool. I know I've popped off a few times, unfortunately.

Keep it up admarc, hopefully more of us can take the hint and present our arguments in ways that don't just dump fuel on the fire, so to speak.

[gilchristfan]

Admark and Pete, In Dr. Jones' presentation he talks about the temperature of the fire, if I remember he shows video and pictures with a flame colour and smoke that indicate the fire wouldn't have been hot enough to even weaken the steel. In one video a person is visible and alive in the area near the fire.

I remember Pete said he went back into his textbooks and agreed with the presentation info (not the conclusions). Pete has that changed?

While I'm not thrilled with Dr. Jones, he does offer a legitimate voice to the argument. His findings seemed to be sound and were published in a peer reviewed journal. For me that level of evidence should not be easily dismissed.


I don't know if he argued that it wasn't hot enough to weaken the steel, just that it wasn't hot enough to melt steel. I could be wrong, its been a while since I read it.

http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

From what I remember, his premise was:

A. The fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel
B. There was melted steel on the site
C. A Thermite reaction is hot enough to melt steel
D. there were other signatures of thermite onsite. (rust colored steel, supposed sulphur odor, etc).

There's one problem I have with the article. Thermite burns pretty fast. Alot of the molten steel Dr. Jones talks about was found in a molten state weeks after the collapse. Its obvious thermite can get steel to a molten level, but how much thermite would it take to keep it molten for weeks? Tons? Even then, wouldn't you need some type of slow release vehicle to make sure the thermite doesn't react all at once?

[jimmifli]

I don't know if he argued that it wasn't hot enough to weaken the steel, just that it wasn't hot enough to melt steel. I could be wrong, its been a while since I read it.

http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

From what I remember, his premise was:

A. The fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel
B. There was melted steel on the site
C. A Thermite reaction is hot enough to melt steel
D. there were other signatures of thermite onsite. (rust colored steel, supposed sulphur odor, etc).

There's one problem I have with the article. Thermite burns pretty fast. Alot of the molten steel Dr. Jones talks about was found in a molten state weeks after the collapse. Its obvious thermite can get steel to a molten level, but how much thermite would it take to keep it molten for weeks? Tons? Even then, wouldn't you need some type of slow release vehicle to make sure the thermite doesn't react all at once?
I thought he argued that the fire couldn't of been over 600 degrees and was likely less than that. And he indicated that 600 would have nearly no effect on the strength of the steel.

I'll recheck it. I might've misunderstood.

[shiva2999]

I don't know if he argued that it wasn't hot enough to weaken the steel, just that it wasn't hot enough to melt steel. I could be wrong, its been a while since I read it.

The melt/weaken quibble was dealt with YEARS ago.

Some of the very first research about the fires and their temps used the term melt when what they obviously meant was soften the steel till it lost a critical amount of tensile strength.

When the debunkers started to parse the word melt, a clarification followed of what anybody with a brain knew what was meant.

[shiva2999]

I thought he argued that the fire couldn't of been over 600 degrees and was likely less than that. And he indicated that 600 would have nearly no effect on the strength of the steel.

I'll recheck it. I might've misunderstood.

Yes, that's one of his arguments and he isn't the first one to make the case, just the first one with academic cred.

The other guys saying the same thing for years before that were just crazy conspiracy theorists.

[35Pete]

Admark and Pete, In Dr. Jones' presentation he talks about the temperature of the fire, if I remember he shows video and pictures with a flame colour and smoke that indicate the fire wouldn't have been hot enough to even weaken the steel. In one video a person is visible and alive in the area near the fire.

I remember Pete said he went back into his textbooks and agreed with the presentation info (not the conclusions). Pete has that changed?

While I'm not thrilled with Dr. Jones, he does offer a legitimate voice to the argument. His findings seemed to be sound and were published in a peer reviewed journal. For me that level of evidence should not be easily dismissed.

More compelling evidence has since manifested itself in my realm of understanding. I find the NIST report to be more comprehensive, involves more experts, and explains more.

[gilchristfan]

The melt/weaken quibble was dealt with YEARS ago.

Some of the very first research about the fires and their temps used the term melt when what they obviously meant was soften the steel till it lost a critical amount of tensile strength.

When the debunkers started to parse the word melt, a clarification followed of what anybody with a brain knew what was meant.

I'm not sure what your trying to say here, but Dr. Jones used the term molten steel, and he didn't mean softened steel.

That was a major point of his paper, that there was molten steel on the site. His point then was that the jet fuel was insufficient to turn steel into a molten state. Since something must have created molten steel, his conclusion was thermite.

But what about my other question.. How do you use thermite to keep steel at a molten state for weeks? For instance, his paper shows a photo of something glowing orange-yellow being pulled from the wreckage. It has a date stamp of 9-27-01 on it, 16 days after the collapse. How did it stay at such a state for weeks?

[35Pete]

I personally appreciate admarc's patient reiteration of facts that he's produced over and over again. I'd bet he's been annoyed and tossed off a few ad hominems along the way, but I haven't seen them - he's one of the only people in this whole discussion topic that manages to keep his cool. I know I've popped off a few times, unfortunately.

Keep it up admarc, hopefully more of us can take the hint and present our arguments in ways that don't just dump fuel on the fire, so to speak.

Yeah he is doing a fantastic job presenting this in a scientific, non-politicized and unemotional manner.

[shiva2999]

I'm not sure what your trying to say here, but Dr. Jones used the term molten steel, and he didn't mean softened steel.

That was a major point of his paper, that there was molten steel on the site. His point then was that the jet fuel was insufficient to turn steel into a molten state. Since something must have created molten steel, his conclusion was thermite.

But what about my other question.. How do you use thermite to keep steel at a molten state for weeks? For instance, his paper shows a photo of something glowing orange-yellow being pulled from the wreckage. It has a date stamp of 9-27-01 on it, 16 days after the collapse. How did it stay at such a state for weeks?

I think you're confusing two different subjects.

The first is the question of if the fires were hot enough to cause a critical loss of strength in the steel up at the impact zones.

The second is, if indeed, the steel didn't NEED to approach anything near melting to cause the floors, exterior and core to collapse all at once, then what is the explanation for the superheated molten steel underneath the rubble?

[Al Davis]

Al. No offense but I have a real problem with this.

First the government did it. Admarc comes out (he is a professional architect) and trashes that angle.

Now it seems like it is time for "Plan B". They knew about it but did nothing to stop it.

See why this bothers me?

Sorry to offend you, but its a real possibility. My mother believes none of the conspiracy stuff, but believes they knew ahead of time, but did nothing. Which would explain why Cheney was put in charge of Norad, and the drills they conducted that same morning. Marvin Bush was running security on the whole WTC complex, and while all this was taking place, George H. Bush was in a room with a brother of Bin-laden at the Ritz Carlton hotel for a Carlyle group meeting. But where's the figure head? Sitting in a classroom, innocently reading to children.

Ok, if this was nothing but a pure terrrorist attack, that they couldnt stop. Why didn't we spend more time in Afghanistan trying to capture Bin-laden? Oh, and why did the CIA meet with Bin-laden in the months before?

[35Pete]

Sorry to offend you, but its a real possibility. My mother believes none of the conspiracy stuff, but believes they knew ahead of time, but did nothing. Which would explain why Cheney was put in charge of Norad, and the drills they conducted that same morning. Marvin Bush was running security on the whole WTC complex, and while all this was taking place, George H. Bush was in a room with a brother of Bin-laden at the Ritz Carlton hotel for a Carlyle group meeting. But where's the figure head? Sitting in a classroom, innocently reading to children.

Ok, if this was nothing but a pure terrrorist attack, that they couldnt stop. Why didn't we spend more time in Afghanistan trying to capture Bin-laden? Oh, and why did the CIA meet with Bin-laden in the months before?

Funny. I checked the whacko conspiracy sites and they just misinterpret crap based on their belief that government works.

Ever deal with government on a direct basis? I have. Incompetent beaurocratic infighting morons. I think they missed it because of incompetence, not because of a coverup.

Have you ever entertained the idea that government often is just not effective?

There is a lot of stuff floating out there taken out of context or immediately drawn to conclusion based on legit news stories. But even in this case I did not see a legit news story back up the met with Bin Laden thing. And even had they I still don't see what that proves.

Were they negotiating a body count?

[gilchristfan]

I think you're confusing two different subjects.

The first is the question of if the fires were hot enough to cause a critical loss of strength in the steel up at the impact zones.

The second is, if indeed, the steel didn't NEED to approach anything near melting to cause the floors, exterior and core to collapse all at once, then what is the explanation for the superheated molten steel underneath the rubble?

No, I'm not confusing them, but I'm referring to the second subject. The first few pages of his paper cover the molten metal found at the site. He cites some quotes and posts some photos as evidence. His conclusion was that it was most likely thermite causing the metal to melt.

But my question is, if thermite was used, and thermite caused the steel to melt, how did it keep the steel at a molten state for several weeks?

If it was a continuing thermite reaction, how much thermite would be necessary to continue the reaction for weeks?

[35Pete]

No, I'm not confusing them, but I'm referring to the second subject. The first few pages of his paper cover the molten metal found at the site. He cites some quotes and posts some photos as evidence. His conclusion was that it was most likely thermite causing the metal to melt.

But my question is, if thermite was used, and thermite caused the steel to melt, how did it keep the steel at a molten state for several weeks?

If it was a continuing thermite reaction, how much thermite would be necessary to continue the reaction for weeks?

Jeez. IDK. But I'd imagine they had black helos in the night replenishing it on a daily basis for weeks.

[sukie]

I think it was 80 stories worth.

[Al Davis]

Funny. I checked the whacko conspiracy sites and they just misinterpret crap based on their belief that government works.

Ever deal with government on a direct basis? I have. Incompetent beaurocratic infighting morons. I think they missed it because of incompetence, not because of a coverup.

Have you ever entertained the idea that government often is just not effective?

There is a lot of stuff floating out there taken out of context or immediately drawn to conclusion based on legit news stories. But even in this case I did not see a legit news story back up the met with Bin Laden thing. And even had they I still don't see what that proves.

Were they negotiating a body count?

Ha, perhaps they were getting their story straight, and if this story were true, this is at a time where he was top 10 on americas most wanted, and I dont see it being mentioned on mainstream news.

I'm sure the government is ineffective at times, but effective when they truly want to be.

All I know is owner Silverstein is rolling in billions of dollars right now, Bush is finishing his daddy's job in Iraq, and their stripping our freedoms, and incorparating their police state for the "war on terror".

[sukie]

Police state? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[35Pete]

Ha, perhaps they were getting their story straight, and if this story were true, this is at a time where he was top 10 on americas most wanted, and I dont see it being mentioned on mainstream news.

I'm sure the government is ineffective at times, but effective when they truly want to be.

All I know is owner Silverstein is rolling in billions of dollars right now, Bush is finishing his daddy's job in Iraq, and their stripping our freedoms, and incorparating their police state for the "war on terror".

That's odd. I thought UBL made the FBI top ten a week after HE blew up the towers.

Your faith in government amazes me.

They can kill individuals with ease. Heart attack. Mugging, brake failures.

But 3,000 in plain site is beyond this keystone group's ability.

[shiva2999]

No, I'm not confusing them, but I'm referring to the second subject. The first few pages of his paper cover the molten metal found at the site. He cites some quotes and posts some photos as evidence. His conclusion was that it was most likely thermite causing the metal to melt.

But my question is, if thermite was used, and thermite caused the steel to melt, how did it keep the steel at a molten state for several weeks?

If it was a continuing thermite reaction, how much thermite would be necessary to continue the reaction for weeks?

Sorry, I didn't mean confuse in a pejoritive sense.

I was talking about the first subject.

Anyway, here's what wikipedia has to say about thermite.

Imagine how much was needed at the base and up the core.

Those were big ass steel beams...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Black or blue iron oxide (Fe3O4), produced by oxidizing iron in an oxygen-rich environment under high heat, is the most commonly used thermite oxidizing agent because it is inexpensive and easily produced. Red iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3, commonly known as rust) can also be used to make thermite but yields a less energetic reaction. Other oxides are occasionally used, such as in manganese thermite and chromium thermite, but only for highly specialized purposes. Both examples use aluminium as the reactive metal.

In principle, any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminum. This is rarely done, however, because the properties of aluminium are ideal for this reaction. It is by far the cheapest of the highly reactive metals; it also forms a passivation layer making it safer to handle than many other reactive metals. The melting and boiling points of aluminum also make it ideal for thermite reactions. Its relatively low melting point (660°C, 1221°F) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase[1] and thus proceeds fairly quickly. At the same time, its high boiling point (2519°C, 4566°F) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point.[2] Such a high boiling point is common among transition metals (e.g. iron and copper boil at 2887 °C and 2582 °C respectively), but is especially unusual among the highly reactive metals (cf. magnesium and sodium which boil at 1090 °C and 883 °C respectively).

Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2500 °C (4500 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air.

[Al Davis]

That's odd. I thought UBL made the FBI top ten a week after HE blew up the towers.

Your faith in government amazes me.

They can kill individuals with ease. Heart attack. Mugging, brake failures.

But 3,000 in plain site is beyond this keystone group's ability.

Ok, I was wrong about the top 10, but he was wanted in some way.

[Al Davis]

Police state? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

As Alex Jones would say "Yah, laugh at it!" as he's being dragged away in handcuffs.

lol

Alright, enough of this, back to my narcisstic insignificant life.

[35Pete]

Hmm. Interesting. O2 has a molar mass of 32 grams/mol.
Typically an adult burns 566 ml/minute of O2 ( http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.00211.x/pdf?cookieSet=1)

Let's do a "figure of merit thing", shall we? That means the numbers themselves don't mean anything but the magnitudes do. A sanity check often used to test reality.

Steel melts at 1,300C. I operate at 37 C.

The beams are not a slab but rather H-shaped. And only an inch or two needs to remain molten for a week to provide evidence, right of thermite? They are about 18" across, 4 inches thick, and about 2" deep affected.

Steel weighs .283 lbs/cubic inch (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/874069066.Ch.r.html)

So the steel affected for ONE beam weighs (think of an H, there are 3 sections) 18"*4"*2"*3*.283 = 122 lbs = 55.5 kg. Now the average person consumes 2,000 kilo calories in a day. And breaths .566 l/min*(1440 min/day) = 815 liters O2/day.

How many calories to melt steel? http://www.cambridge.org/uk/education/secondary/science/ks4/gateway_science/downloads/physics_sample.pdf

energy required = mass × specific heat capacity × increase in temperature

calories = 55.5 kg x 420 J/kg-C x 1,300 C = 30,303,000 Joules.

1 calorie = 4.184 Joules.

So 30,303,000/4.184 = 7,240 kcal.

Calories are units of heat. Heat that is catalyzed by O2. The human body is INCREDIBLY efficient at oxidation but let's assume the the thermite reaction is too. (Don't know how that can be. Biology has near perfect efficiency).

O2 needed to keep steel melted = 7,240/2000*815 = 2,950 liters/day. (a ratio to highly efficient human internal combustion).

But O2 is 32 grams per 22.4 liters so that's 2950/22.4*32 = 4.2 kg/day of O2.

Now the molar mass of Fe3O4 (blue iron) is 55.85*3 + 32*2 = 231.55 grams/mol.

The specific gravity of Fe3O4 is 5.1 ( http://www.reade.com/products/Minerals_and_Ores/magnetite.html )

But specific gravity is relative to H20 which has a density of 1,000 kg/ meter cubed.

So blue iron, used in a thermite reaction, has a density of 5,100 kg/meter cubed.

How much O2 to keep the steel molten for a week? 7*4.2 kg = 15 kg.

64/231.555 = 28% of the molar mass of blue iron is 02. Can we use this as an estimate? Sure.

So how much blue iron needed?

15/.28 = 54 kg of blue iron needed to keep the beam molten for a week.

Woah..I did underestimate the number in the last analysis!!! That's about 110 pounds!

Question. Did all 110 pounds conveniently hang around the beam after the blast? LOL

What if 5% did. Even that is a reach. That'd still be 2200 lbs of blue iron for the blast. And that's
just one beam! And that's not even the explosives! That's just the oxidant. Probably gotta blow ten beams. Not to mention the ability of guys to run around a busy tower
with over a ton of explosives and oxidants on their backs and NO ONE noticed. Per beam that is..

More verifiable Shiva. Gotta be fair.

Go look at the links and do it yourself.

[35Pete]

Like I said the actual numbers don't mean much. What is does say is that at least 100 lbs of the stuff per beam would be needed. And that doesn't add up.

[shiva2999]

Odd, ain't it?

Try it from the other way Pete.

If it wasn't thermite that created the pools of molten metal, WHAT WAS IT?

Because the fires through the building didn't get REMOTELY hot enough to do it.

[35Pete]

I found a better method. One based on heat content. I am going to edit my method in the post and simplify it. Don't want to be accused of "undersimplifying".

And it doen't have any guesses in it other than the section of steel affected.
All the other values can be verified on the net.

Easier to understand but a bit more damning.

[35Pete]

Hey I forgot the Heat of Fusion! That's the extra heat required to melt the steel. Well, steel is about 97-99% Iron so it weighs about the same. Iron has a molecular mass of 55.85 grams/mol. The heat of fusion of iron is 13,800 Joules/mole. 55.5 kg of steel is about 1,000 moles. So the heat of fusion (a little different than energy required to raise temperature) is 1000*13800 = 13,800,000 Joules which is 4000 kcal. That equates to an extra 4000/2000*.566*22.4/32 = 790 mg of O2 which is a measely 3 grams of blue iron to help melt the steel. That's all folks. Not a lot.

So blowing a column using thermite is physically possible. No doubt. But keeping it a slag for a week?

Too funny.

[35Pete]

Geez. This site says 5 weeks. That's 12 tons of thermite per column! Wow. Those guys must have driven a convoy of trucks into the basement of the WTC.

Workers Reported Molten Steel in Ground Zero Rubble
Reports of molten steel in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

[shiva2999]

You're still avoiding the question Pete.

If not thermite, then what?

[JoetheDictator]

advantage on this page so far goes to pete. :popcorn:

[shiva2999]

You're avoiding the question too.

If not thermite, then what?

And BTW, doing an eyeglazing bunch of calculations then in your very next post saying "I forgot something" does serious damage to your credibility.

[35Pete]

You're avoiding the question too.

If not thermite, then what?

And BTW, doing an eyeglazing bunch of calculations then in your very next post saying "I forgot something" does serious damage to your credibility.

Come on Shiva. Two serious pieces of nonsense here.

First. The argument that "If you don't have an alternative explanation to thermite, then it must be thermite". That's intellectually cheap.

I'd counter with the question "How'd they get 12 tons of blue iron per beam into the building?" LOL

I used high school physics to demonstrate that your notion of a thermite cocktail brought down the building is stupid by making an order of magnitude estimate of how much blue iron in that thermite may be needed for each column. The answer again makes you look ridiculous. Your usual tactic is to deflect. If not thermite then what? In other words you are attempting to state that if I don't answer that question then I am wrong on my assertion. Bogus!!!

Second.

"Go straight to the credibility" tactic. Jesus Shiva you are getting to be an old dog. Don't you have ANY new tricks?

[TRIPLE P]

God tore down the towers because of fags.

[TheCrystalBall]

Come on Shiva. Two serious pieces of nonsense here.

First. The argument that "If you don't have an alternative explanation to thermite, then it must be thermite". That's intellectually cheap.

I'd counter with the question "How'd they get 12 tons of blue iron per beam into the building?" LOL

I used high school physics to demonstrate that your notion of a thermite cocktail brought down the building is stupid by making an order of magnitude estimate of how much blue iron in that thermite may be needed for each column. The answer again makes you look ridiculous. Your usual tactic is to deflect. If not thermite then what? In other words you are attempting to state that if I don't answer that question then I am wrong on my assertion. Bogus!!!

Second.

"Go straight to the credibility" tactic. Jesus Shiva you are getting to be an old dog. Don't you have ANY new tricks?



It's amazing, isn't it shiva? He still refuses to answer the question.


Pete. They should call you the Dodger. All you do is evade pointed questions.

[shiva2999]

It's amazing, isn't it shiva? He still refuses to answer the question.

Pete. They should call you the Dodger. All you do is evade pointed questions.

Yup.

The Cowardly Lion...

Mr 35Pete
http://carlagirl.net/blog/uploaded_images/Cowardly_Lion-782230.jpg

[35Pete]

OK People.

Look at who the cowards are? I make a case and Shiva, instead of rebutting it makes the ridiculous illogical extension that to prove my point I need to offer an alternative. You see the can accomplish three things here.

1.) Deflect against an argument that he has no answer too.
2.) Steer, yet again, the conversation off course to avoid getting embarrased.
3.) Demonstrate that by my not offereing an alternative that his theory must be correct, no matter how stupid it actually is in practice.

And then the monkey shows up with pom poms.


Shiva you are the coward. If you post crap then BACK IT UP. Don't just post it, declare it true, then turn into a game playing ass when someone calls you on it.

[shiva2999]

Pete

It's a simple question and all the dancing in the world won't answer it.

If not thermite, then what?

[35Pete]

Don't know. But it's not thermite.

Now if you want to be fair then let me ask you a question.

How'd they sneak in tons of oxidant for each beam? And why use so much when only a fraction of that would have been needed?

[shiva2999]

Don't know.

So then, do you have any desire to figure it out or are you just going to shrug your shoulders?

[shiva2999]

Now if you want to be fair then let me ask you a question.

How'd they sneak in tons of oxidant for each beam? And why use so much when only a fraction of that would have been needed?

Don't know, but I'd also like your calculations to be peer reviewed before I take them as correct.

[TheCrystalBall]

Don't know. But it's not thermite.

Now if you want to be fair then let me ask you a question.

How'd they sneak in tons of oxidant for each beam? And why use so much when only a fraction of that would have been needed?

Although he doesn't believe thermite caused the collapse. Pete finally accepts, after arduous months, the buildings couldn't have come down via the 9/11 commission/popular mechanics claims.


I think pete is slowly progressing shiva.

For the record, I dont know if it was thermite either. I'm not sold on it yet.

[shiva2999]

For the record, I dont know if it was thermite either. I'm not sold on it yet.

I'm not sold on it either but I'm certainly not sold on the NIST explanation.

I don't think the fires in the buildings were ANYWHERE near hot enough to compromise the strength of those buildings.

Think of it this way.

A huge multiply reinforced core stretches from the foundation to the roof.

The skin is a gigantic lattice work tube that goes from foundation to roof.

Suspended inside are a hundred or so concrete floors supported by thousands of beams and girders holding the whole thing together.

Punch out the skin on the way in and take out a few floors? Big deal. The thing still holds together.

Take out a corner and blow most of the jet fuel through the building? Big deal. The thing still holds together.

Planes are not artillery shells.

They are hollow aluminum tubes. They crush and rip apart at impact.

I don't see where they could do more than minimal damage to the core, especially with the second hit.

And the fires were a joke too.

Oxygen starved, especially at the centre of the building where the core was, there wasn't nearly enough heat to significantly affect the steel.

So the question remains.

Since the strikes didn't bring the buildings down, what did? The fires? Hardly?

And if the fires weren't that hot or extensive, WHAT CAUSED THE POOLS OF MOLTEN METAL AND GIRDERS WITH RED HOT ENDS?

[JoetheDictator]

:clapper: spot on

[Evan]

:clapper: spot on.

Well, Phantom despite our political differences we can agree on that!! Islamic have been hating the west, especially America, for ages regardless of whom was in the Oval Office. The Iranian Hostages could tell you that.

[35Pete]

Although he doesn't believe thermite caused the collapse. Pete finally accepts, after arduous months, the buildings couldn't have come down via the 9/11 commission/popular mechanics claims.


I think pete is slowly progressing shiva.

For the record, I dont know if it was thermite either. I'm not sold on it yet.

There you go again putting words in people's mouths. You do realize that you have no credibility on the Range, don't you?

[Jetsy]

Check out this video... Ignore the first half of it... if you must. It's the first part of the series, so he had to open with his exposition and music. It's actually pretty good for some Last of the Mohican fans.

You'll have to get towards the end of it to listen to the real firefighters that were there that day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE9TWDwhTRA&mode=related&search=

What a BS bias video!!! music was decent and that's all.

[35Pete]

Interesting Shiva. Let's take examine your opinion piece by peice, shall we?

First. If you knew anything about basic statics, you'd realize that the concrete floors provide ZERO vertical support. They provide lateral or horizontal support only. Only the columns provide vertical force. admarc is an architect and can confirm this. As could any civil or mechanical engineer.

Second, this "hollow alluminum tube" weighed 240,000 pounds (109,000 kg)[1]
and was flying at 350 knots (400 mph or 650 kph)

650 kph is 180.5 m/sec.

What's the kinetic energy of an 109,000 kg object traveling at 180.5 m/sec?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/35Pete/eq1a.jpg

Now a really big empty MACK Truck weighs 50,000 kg.[2] If it were traveling at 70 mph (113 km/hr) then what would it's kinetic energy be? (70mph = 31.4 m/sec)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/35Pete/eq2a.jpg

I put them both in exponential form to make it easier to ratio the two. Speaking of.. that's a great idea! What is the ratio of the two? Well...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/35Pete/eq3a.jpg

Wow. About 70:1 roughly. That means that 757 with 60 passengers in it and nearly a full load of fuel (I took into consideration that it was not fully loaded by subtracting off the max weight the number of empty seats) impacted the side of the WTC with the equivalent energy of 70 Mack trucks all at once!

But the plane is a hollow tube you say?

True. Part of it is. But its structural design makes it very rigid. That's an important concept.

Ohh.. Have you ever seen a completely solid Mack Truck?

Sophistry: soph-ist-ry

–noun, plural -ries. 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

[1] http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_300tech.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck

[35Pete]

So the plane had to either sever or melt the supporting beams for the WTC to collapse? Why's that Shiva? What if the beams were weakened?

Steel melts at about 1300 C. Around that Range [1].

Steel loses 50% of it's strength at 650 C. [2]

The fires in the WTC were reported to be around 775 C [2] which is lower than the capacity of the jet fuel because it was not an oxygen rich fire.

So an object that hits the building with the force of 70 Mack Trucks cannot possibly damage the interior columns. And those columns, which then stood at a strength of less than 50% had no problem whatsoever holding up?

That's pretty amazing thinking there Shiva. Makes me scratch my head a little though. :hmm:

Sophistry: soph-ist-ry

–noun, plural -ries. 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.


[1] http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

[2] http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#ref4

[35Pete]

Sorry phantom. I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it. I'm pretty sure I restored it though.

[35Pete]

And if the fires weren't that hot or extensive, WHAT CAUSED THE POOLS OF MOLTEN METAL AND GIRDERS WITH RED HOT ENDS?

Well Shiva. The answer is quite obvious. Bushco and Co. placed tons of blue iron around each column. They only need a few kg for the thermite reaction but they wanted molten slag to be found 5 weeks later so that they could **** with the public.

[HURLS]

I'm with the Loose Change dude.

[35Pete]

Another thing. The columns were designed to equally distribute the weight of the proceeding floors. Again, the columns provided the vertical counterforce to gravity, not the floors. Floors provide horizontal force only. A floor cannot support another floor, only the columns can.

Normally the building would have been in net zero force equilbrium. How do I know this. Well, again, basic physics.

Force = mass x acceleration ....or

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/35Pete/eq4a.jpg

Now normally parts of the WTC don't accelerate because then parts of the building would have a velocity, right? So the net vertical forces would be zero. Have to be otherwise mass would be infinite, wouldn't it?

Now the column structure of the building was symmetric, as was the building around the columns for each axis.
It would have to be. Otherwise the net forces on the columns would be asymmetric and you would have a net force which would create a velocity.

And to agree with you the column sections below the damaged floors were intact. So how did they collapse?

The plot thickens....

What if the 28 floors above the tower collapsed because of the weakened steel? Are you saying that the rest of the building would have stood? Well, if I were a betting man I'd bet when those 28 floors collapsed onto the first non-damaged floor then two things happend:

1.) The floor itself was not designed for that load so it too would have collapsed.

2.) There now would have been an unequal force placed on the first healthy section of column, thus causing it to fail zero net force equilibrium.

Thus the first floor with "healthy" columns would have joined in the collapse because a net force causes velocity. Then the next healthy floor would have experienced the same event, and the next and so on and so on.

[HURLS]

Why didn't Cory Lidle's smaller plane make a smaller building collapse? Just a ?, not an argumentative point.

[JoetheDictator]

thanks pete.

[35Pete]

Another way of looking at it Shiva is to think of lead.

Lead is a hell of a lot softer than aircraft aluminum.

A .50 caliber bullet at a hundred meters will blow away body parts and penetrate steel. It's made out of lead. May not go through a lot of steel but it can. How's that Shiva?

Well, at 100 meters the bullet would probably lose about 15% of it's muzzle energy because drag is a function of velocity and that is when the bullet is at its faster. Right out of the muzzle.

Well how much muzzle energy is that? Good question! It's 15,600 J.[1] 85% of that is still a good amount. That's 13,300 J.

How many .50 caliber rounds would need to be fired at the WTC all at once to impact with the same energy as that 757?

Damn! Another good question.

Well. Again. Let's take a ratio...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/35Pete/eq5a.jpg

Wow. 131,000+ .50 cal rounds hitting all at the same time!!!

How many P-51 Mustangs firing a one second burst at a measely 100 meters would that equate to?

Well, the fire rate of those 50-cals was 4 rounds/sec [2][3] and each P-51 had 8 guns so 131,000/(4*8) = 16,400 P-51s all firing concentrated fire on the WTC.

Yeah. How could a measely plane cause any significant damage?

[1] http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/M107.html
[2] http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/007140.html
[3] http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg04-e.htm

Sophistry: soph-ist-ry

–noun, plural -ries. 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

[HURLS]

Sorry for jumping in late. But how is the small hole in the Pentagon attributed to a commercial airliner?

[35Pete]

Sorry for jumping in late. But how is the small hole in the Pentagon attributed to a commercial airliner?

What do you mean by small?

[JoetheDictator]

I think TO means narrow and low. As for the WTC stuff, thanks for explaining pete

[HURLS]

I think TO means narrow and low. As for the WTC stuff, thanks for explaining pete

Yes. TY for the clearer explanation, and not attacking the poster like done elsewhere. I meant: The hole looked like a missile shot, not something a commercial plane went thru.

[35Pete]

The bullets...

Well, one bullet has a mass of 660 grains which is .094 kg or 3.3 oz.
Hits the building at 788 m/s which is 2585 fps which is 1,763 mph.

One "Mach" of airspeed is 763 mph. The bullets were traveling at 1763/763 = Mach 2.3.

131,000 bullets weigh collectively 12,300 lbs which is 6.16 tons

A bullet is half cylindrical and half conical. It's diameter is 12.7 mm and it's length is 100 mm (see sources before this post for all info).

So it's volume is .3 thousands of a cubic foot. So you could fit 1/.3e-3 = 3300 bulllets roughly in a cubic foot. How many cubic feet is 131,000 bullets?

131,000/3300 = 39.7 cubic feet.

A typical Kenmore refridgerator is 18.5 cubic feet.

Jamming 131,000 bullets all together would take up the volume of 2 large refridgerators.

So, a box of bullets the size of two refidgerators hit the WTC at Mach 2.3 would impact with the same kinetic energy as the 757.

But this isn't enough energy to cause significant damage to the building?

Yet we have no problem whatsoever beleiving that a small asteroid 150 feet in diameter traveling at a very fast speed could have blown a hole in the ground in Arizona 3/4th of a mile in diameter and over 500 feet deep. [1]

Damn. The thing was made of rock, not metal! It should have shattered into a trillion pieces on impact and just left a scuff mark.

Instead it blew out 100 million tons of earth. [1]

[1] http://www.meteorcrater.com/eventsfun/cratercs/index.htm

[TheCrystalBall]

There you go again putting words in people's mouths. You do realize that you have no credibility on the Range, don't you?

Says who? You and your three friends who are wrong about everything?

[TheCrystalBall]

The bullets...

Well, one bullet has a mass of 660 grains which is .094 kg or 3.3 oz.
Hits the building at 788 m/s which is 2585 fps which is 1,763 mph.

One "Mach" of airspeed is 763 mph. The bullets were traveling at 1763/763 = Mach 2.3.

131,000 bullets weigh collectively 12,300 lbs which is 6.16 tons

A bullet is half cylindrical and half conical. It's diameter is 12.7 mm and it's length is 100 mm (see sources before this post for all info).

So it's volume is .3 thousands of a cubic foot. So you could fit 1/.3e-3 = 3300 bulllets roughly in a cubic foot. How many cubic feet is 131,000 bullets?

131,000/3300 = 39.7 cubic feet.

A typical Kenmore refridgerator is 18.5 cubic feet.

Jamming 131,000 bullets all together would take up the volume of 2 large refridgerators.

So, a box of bullets the size of two refidgerators hit the WTC at Mach 2.3 would impact with the same kinetic energy as the 757.

But this isn't enough energy to cause significant damage to the building?

Yet we have no problem whatsoever beleiving that a small asteroid 150 feet in diameter traveling at a very fast speed could have blown a hole in the ground in Arizona 3/4th of a mile in diameter and over 500 feet deep. [1]

Damn. The thing was made of rock, not metal! It should have shattered into a trillion pieces on impact and just left a scuff mark.

Instead it blew out 100 million tons of earth. [1]

[1] http://www.meteorcrater.com/eventsfun/cratercs/index.htm


There is a HUGE basic error here being proposed by pete in his conclusion.

Can anyone guess what it is?



( Btw everyone. I can now say for sure pete does not have his P.eng. I doubt he even has his MA. In fact, I doubt you went to a good school. It was defintely some commuity college. Do you even have your BA in engineering? What did you take mechanical, civil or environmental?)

[HURLS]

Do you even have your BA in engineering? What did you take mechanical, civil or environmental?)

Railroad. :D

Sukie's the Caboose.

[35Pete]

Cute Chimp.

Let me guess. The mass of a box of bullets that size is concentrated? Doesn't play into the argument. Trying to demonstrate what kind of forces were at play. Hell, if the box of bullets held together then only one or two columns would have been severed. That would actually help your case as that box would sever the columns and come flying out the other side of the building mostly intact. Since it would then it would have retained some of its KE because it had a post impact velocity, meaning not all of the KE was transferred to the building.

If they blew apart on impact then the energy distribution would be more diffuse, approaching the WTC impact by the 757.

Part of the plane too blew out the side of the building. But the debris flew only a few hundred feet, indicating that most of the energy was transferred to the building.

So, you want to play physics, huh? said the spider to the fly.

You use that "big brain" of yours *cough* and "reason" all you want. I use physics and make you look like a jack ass.

[HURLS]

I'm still trying to figure out what an asteroid has to do with GW Bush causing our Towers to be blown up. But the mind-diverting implied explosion seemed nice. :D

[TheCrystalBall]

Cute Chimp.

Let me guess. The mass of a box of bullets that size is concentrated? Doesn't play into the argument. Trying to demonstrate what kind of forces were at play. Hell, if the box of bullets held together then only one or two columns would have been severed. That would actually help your case as that box would sever the columns and come flying out the other side of the building mostly intact. Since it would then it would have retained some of its KE because it had a post impact velocity, meaning not all of the KE was transferred to the building.

If they blew apart on impact then the energy distribution would be more diffuse, approaching the WTC impact by the 757.

Part of the plane too blew out the side of the building. But the debris flew only a few hundred feet, indicating that most of the energy was transferred to the building.

So, you want to play physics, huh? said the spider to the fly.

You use that "big brain" of yours *cough* and "reason" all you want. I use physics and make you look like a jack ass.



Close but no....ceee-gar.


Pete....do you have your P.Eng, MA or BA. In what? Environmental, mechanical, or civil?

[35Pete]

Do you even have your BA in engineering? What did you take mechanical, civil or environmental?)

OMG!!!!!!! :rofl:

SHOW ME ONE PERSON ON THIS PLANET THAT HAS A BA in ENGINEERING!!!

I thought your supersmart brother was an engineer? :rofl:

You know soooo very much about him. Does he have a "BA" in Engineering?

Or is he reaaaalllllyyy smart and has his "MA" in Engineering? ROFLMAO.

Nope. Don't have a BA in Enigineering...

I have a BS in Engineering...And an MSEE.

CHIMP. I CAUGHT YOU IN A LIE!!!!!!

[35Pete]

You did it again!!!!!!!

OMG!!!!!!!!!!
:rofl:
:rofl:

You are such a liar!!!!

You don't have a brother with that is an engineer. Liar.

[35Pete]

BA = Bachelor of Arts.

BS = Bachelor of Sciences.

What does he do Chimp? Make nice sculptures of Einstein, Bohrs, and Maxwell?

[TheCrystalBall]

You're riding me because I dont know the exact technical terms of my brother's engineering degree? Because of an honest mistake. Big deal. It takes two seconds to learn what it really is. You're acting as if it would years of studying to know its a "BS."

and MA...I was using it as a short for masters. I guess you couldnt grasp that. Thats like breaking someone's balls on here for a spelling error.


But go ahead. Make a mountain out of a molehole. Its all you've got lately.


BTW, you still havent caught the basic error in your conclusion.


God, you're posts are getting even more pathetic.

[35Pete]

Close but no....ceee-gar.


Pete....do you have your P.Eng, MA or BA. In what? Environmental, mechanical, or civil?

I'll give you a hint. All engineers in most US programs must spend their first two years cross-studying other disciplines. Everyone at my school, regardless of discipline needed to take Circuits, Statics, Dynamics, Materials, Control Systems, and Thermodynamics. And most of the physi