9/11

[Fisherking]

If fire had caused the building collapse there are several things missing.

Each of the structural members had a safety factor of at least 5, meaning they could support 5 times the load placed upon them. Straight down was the path of greatest resistance.

Had it been fire which caused the failure then you would expect to see the building lean in the direction of least resistance until the effected area toppled over leaving the floors beneath substantially unaffected. Had it pancaked as NIST theorised there would have been a number of substantial jolts and left a collapsed structure about 30 stories high.

Instead we have building 1 coming down in 11 sec. and building 2 in only 9 sec. There was very little of the building left above the first two floors and those who escaped after the collapse reported seeing blue sky overhead. Essentially 900,000 tons of reenforced concrete and steel were pulverised to dust before it ever hit the ground. There were pools of molten metal and the rubble pile remained hot for weeks.

The black smoke coming from the buildings is also an indicator of the temperature of the fires inside. Black smoke is oxygen starved and would indicate fires of only about 600° to possibly 800° C, NIST acknowledges the presence of molten iron and steel but offers no explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=OmuzyWC60eE

Just who is ignoring the physics and engineering behind it?

[Greyblades]

Its 2015 and we're still going on about this.

[Viking]

The black smoke coming from the buildings is also an indicator of the temperature of the fires inside. Black smoke is oxygen starved and would indicate fires of only about 600° to possibly 800° C, NIST acknowledges the presence of molten iron and steel but offers no explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=OmuzyWC60eE

That's wrong. Molten materials are treated at points 21 and 23 here.

[Fisherking]

That's wrong. Molten materials are treated at points 21 and 23 here.

They are showing ignorance if anyone thinks that glowing orange yellow metal is aluminium. Melted aluminium is silver and dose not glow unless it is in the presence of an electrode used in the smelting process. It would scum over with a white film in its reaction to the air but would not glow. As for being mixed with other materials that would just result in a blackening of the scum rather than forming a glowing mass. This explanation is grasping at straws.

It is also extremely unlikely that any melting could take place in the pulverised remains of the collapsed buildings, as they would have been oxygen deprived and lacking any ready fuel source.

The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

[Risasi]

<snip>
The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

Agreed, generally speaking. The odds of all three buildings falling within their own footprint, not deviating in any direction except straight down? What are the odds? I mean all it would take is one set of bolts in those girders to not fail and the path of least resistance has now shifted to a topple.

All one has to do is view some videos of demolition jobs of large buildings to realize that the WTC buildings coming down are pretty eerie.

You'd think at least one of them would look more like one of these: https://youtu.be/DDuUR7l3bgc

[Husar]

Agreed, generally speaking. The odds of all three buildings falling within their own footprint, not deviating in any direction except straight down?

Three? I saw two towers that planes flew into, but then again I never bothered to read all the detailed reports and stuff.

As for the falling, if I am not mistaken such towers are built with the strongest steel construction/steel columns in the four outside corners, with maybe some weaker supports closer to the center. However, the center is more like reinforced concrete. While reinforced concrete is quite strong, the steel in it is rather bendable without the concrete. So once you get some 10 or 20 stories tumbling down, the will most likely shatter the concrete of the lower floors first, the steel in the concrete will not put up much of a resistance and it crashes through the center first because the center has less of a resistance than the strong steel columns on the outside. These columns can be bent downward due to the immense force of all the material falling down on the inside. Remember that it pretty much hits each of the lower floors as one big ball of rubble and no single floor can hold this, it collapses, joins the big pile of rubble and together they hit the next lower floor. This pile of rubble picks up more energy with each floor that collapses so as long as the top floor concrete cannot hold out the floors falling onto it, the building is done for. A single joint or whatever becomes irrelevant as the chance of it holding a microsecond longer becomes irrelevant. It's like trying to stop a meteor by firing a needle at it.

I really don't quite see the problem given that the outside of the towers was stronger and the inside parts basically became dead weight once a few levels collapsed onto the rest. It would much rather seem unlikely that the mass would break through the harder "outer shell" to collapse into either direction. Especially given that changing the direction of a larger and larger mass requires more and more energy. The comparison with buildings that are constructed in a completely different way is not helpful in this regard.

[Risasi]

Well, there you go. The official story is two planes knocked down three buildings.

[Husar]

Well, there you go. The official story is two planes knocked down three buildings.

I thought we were talking about the twin towers? How many more buildings were there and how tall were they? Why would someone blow up the generator building or whatever else there was? And have you taken into consideration that the shockwave of the two towers collapsing could also affect the integrity of nearby smaller buildings?

And while I'm at it, if that is all you took away from my post, I'm sorry for you.

[Hooahguy]

Three? I saw two towers that planes flew into, but then again I never bothered to read all the detailed reports and stuff.

Hes referring to Building 7 of the WTC. It burned all day and then collapsed, leading some to believe that it was rigged to blow since no plane hit it. Which is silly because obviously no building ever has fallen due to a fire before.

[Risasi]

Hes referring to Building 7 of the WTC. It burned all day and then collapsed, leading some to believe that it was rigged to blow since no plane hit it. Which is silly because obviously no building ever has fallen due to a fire before.

Like building 6? Which sat between building 7 and one of the twin towers. Building 6 did suffer severe fire damage and was still standing until they demo'ed it. Of course it's a lot smaller so that one can be explained.

Likewise building 7 was hit with debris, but no fuel deposit into the building. There were a few small fires, but most of the windows were still intact. None of these fires were even close to the extent as the other two buildings. Even if they were, where did the fuel come from?
Because this building also collapsed upon itself.
It still hasn't been explained. In fact it was never addressed in the original report. It also housed many cases being investigaed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Over 10,000 were lost in the fire. Among other numerous financials.

[Viking]

They are showing ignorance if anyone thinks that glowing orange yellow metal is aluminium. Melted aluminium is silver and dose not glow unless it is in the presence of an electrode used in the smelting process. It would scum over with a white film in its reaction to the air but would not glow. As for being mixed with other materials that would just result in a blackening of the scum rather than forming a glowing mass. This explanation is grasping at straws.

And how many experiments with melted aluminium in conditions similar to those at the WTC have you performed to come this conclusion with such confidence?

It is also extremely unlikely that any melting could take place in the pulverised remains of the collapsed buildings, as they would have been oxygen deprived and lacking any ready fuel source.

That doesn't sound very "open minded".

First, you would have to confirm the amounts of melted metal to calculate the energy required for the phase transformation (the smaller the individual melted pieces, the more local the intense heat could be). Then, with these numbers, you would have to look at what could act as fuel in the rubble; including things like local pockets of jet fuel, furniture etc. Potentially, a mix of different materials could be a potent fuel source under the right circumstances. You'd also have run a lot experiments to check whether the ruins would definitely block all ways of getting oxygen from the surroundings.

You'd also have to rule out, as with the above, that the fires/kinetic energy of the airplane in some small areas provided enough heat to melt steel.

(fun fact: at least some steel can burn)

The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

Again, which experiments have you run?

All one has to do is view some videos of demolition jobs of large buildings to realize that the WTC buildings coming down are pretty eerie.

You'd think at least one of them would look more like one of these: https://youtu.be/DDuUR7l3bgc

Unless you believe that they were brought down by demolition, it's not strange that they didn't look like demolitions.

[Risasi]

...except the WTC buildings do looking like demos.

https://youtu.be/-zHHvo6U4lA

EDIT: Ugh, great. Thanks a lot you guys. Now I'm watching videos and re-evaluating my thoughts on the subject. It's looking far more incriminating than I knew about. For the first time ever I'm reading about Danny Jowenko and Kurt Sonnenfeld.

[Hooahguy]

You guys have it all wrong, Cobra was behind it all!

[Risasi]

You guys have it all wrong, Cobra was behind it all!

I heard Cobra Commander actually was a founding member of Hydra. He and Dr. Claw...don't call him "Mr."

[Viking]

...except the WTC buildings do looking like demos.

Make up your mind.

[Risasi]

Make up your mind.

Give me another decade or three, then maybe. Probably not. Besides, why am I required to come up with every answer? Pfft.

Frankly I've never been able to come to any conclusion about the twin towers and gave up many years ago. Building 7 has always been a problem. That looks like a clear demo job, for sure. No jet fuel involved, it's a spook building and a lot of secrets died in it when it went flat. You care to explain building 7?

Like I said originally I believe there is so much disinfo sowed in our media forums we will never really figure it out. At least not in this lifetime. One does not have to figure out the truth to know when they are being lied to.

[Fragony]

...except the WTC buildings do looking like demos.

https://youtu.be/-zHHvo6U4lA

EDIT: Ugh, great. Thanks a lot you guys. Now I'm watching videos and re-evaluating my thoughts on the subject. It's looking far more incriminating than I knew about. For the first time ever I'm reading about Danny Jowenko and Kurt Sonnenfeld.

With demolition you blow up the lower floors and let the weight do the rest, what you are seing ain't demolition, it crumbles from above. What looks like explosions is air escaping after getting sandwiched

[Risasi]

With demolition you blow up the lower floors and let the weight do the rest, what you are seing ain't demolition, it crumbles from above. What looks like explosions is air escaping after getting sandwiched

Yeah, I was wrong there. I should have said building 7, not made a blanket statement about all WTC buildings. Building 7 has always been my focus in this. But I can see that it's pointless. Everyone had already made up their mind and is not even open to actually discussing facts. Which is fine.

It's pretty obvious though that you didn't watch that link, as it specifically is footage of building 7 coming down. What you just described above of a demolition is what happens in that video. Which is pretty ironic.