9/11

[Risasi]

comparatively insignificant building

That's your opinion. Look at the tenants, follow the money. I think you missed earlier where I mentioned just one of many small financial aspects affected by building 7 being taken down.

---

@Hooahguy Thanks for proving my point. Did you even read the contents of your own link?

St. Mark's Campanile - Not a skyscraper

Aberdeen Department building - suffered a total collapse while under construction

Ronan Point - suffered a fatal collapse of one of its corners. Still upright after collapse

Skyline Towers Fairfax, VA - "blamed the accident on insufficient wooden shoring to hold up concrete being poured to form the floor above it." Large section still standing after collapse

Wedbush building - partial collapse, under construction

L'Ambiance Plaza collapse - under construction

Sampoong Dept Store - another partial, also was due to the removal of several support columns on the lower floors in order to make room for escalators.

Winsdor Tower - My favorite. "suffered the collapse of the upper 11 floors of the building" They even have a picture of the building post collapse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid) There are like ten stories still standing.

Okay, there are a few I skipped. Like 700 year old churches and stuff. Most aren't skyscrapers, of course the WTC buildings are also listed on that site. Your link was a red herring. No other skyscrapers have collapsed exactly like the three at the 9/11 incident, not into their own footprint like the WTC buildings. Not without help.

[Hooahguy]

Its almost as if buildings are not all built the same so while the method of collapse are the similar the results might differ. So you are totally missing my point in all of this.

EDIT: let me reiterate- no building is exactly the same. When a progressive collapse occurs it affects buildings in different ways considering how the collapse is triggered. You are not going to find the exact same scenario anywhere since it was a unique event.

[Papewaio]

Whilst oxygen gives its name to the class of oxidizers it is not the only one.

Aluminum when hot enough will burn, something the British Royal Navy found out the hard way in the Falklands war when their Aluminum warships burnt up.

You can soften steel by striking it. To melt something you can hit it with enough kinetic energy it will melt. So even without a oxidizer rich environment you can melt objects with enough kinetic force.

[Husar]

That's your opinion. Look at the tenants, follow the money. I think you missed earlier where I mentioned just one of many small financial aspects affected by building 7 being taken down.

Because it is super unlikely that when someone flies planes into the World Trade Center, that there is a financial component to it or someone somewhere even profits from it? Again, how many people died from the collapse of building 7? And even if we assume that it was demolished later on, how is that evil? Could they not have demolished it to make it collapse like that and not kill even more people or cause even more damage? Were the two following wars started because of the collapse of building 7 or maybe because someone flew two planes into the twin towers? And how were Russia and Israel part of the conspiracy since they apparently knew about the terror plans as well? Is Putin a CIA agent now or would he rather have blown the whole conspiracy up first chance he got? Other than wild theories I see nothing credible that would make me believe it was "an inside job". And focusing on some sideshow of the whole affair because you have to admit that the major event was probably not staged makes it seem even less credible.

[a completely inoffensive name]

9/11 was a Bush conspiracy to create a pretext for a 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq for oil we never got.

[Fisherking]

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?

LOL, far more than you have and seemingly more than NIST and FEMA ever did to prove their hypothesis.

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.

Surely you are joking. To heat all the members equally so that it pancaked down rather than typing or distorting on any other axis? To collapse the entire structure straight down through the path of greatest resistance, not once but twice.

I don’t think those aircraft possessed the kinetic energy to result in melted metal. There are several engineers who call into question if they had sufficient energy to penetrate the building to the extent they did. At the time of design the buildings were engineered to withstand the impact of a Boing 707. It is also known that a 707 has more energy on impact than the 767s that were used in the attacks.

Please understand that there was a great deal of criticism of the investigation, from the beginning, as it was not conducted in a cogent manner. The agencies involved abandoned their own standards going in. It was not a fire safety investigation at all. There was no attempt to gather evidence, analyse the rubble, etc. The site was just ordered to be cleared and the handling of causes were primarily theoretical.


I happen to have a background in engineering and metallurgy and have done more than my fair share of fire protection work. However, like most people I took the government at their word for years. This is not a topic I had reason to question, nor the time, until after my retirement.

It would appear that NIST and FEMA are the ones who are voicing opinions without proper experimentation, which could be why only a couple of dozen engineers and architects have publicly supported their conclusion, while a few thousand are on record in calling for further investigations. Most simply haven’t had time or inclination to read the reports or review the data, which is understandable. This is something that takes people out of their comfort zone.

Still, there is the problem that the NIST explanation defies physics, at least as we know it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

[Ironside]

I don’t think those aircraft possessed the kinetic energy to result in melted metal. There are several engineers who call into question if they had sufficient energy to penetrate the building to the extent they did. At the time of design the buildings were engineered to withstand the impact of a Boing 707. It is also known that a 707 has more energy on impact than the 767s that were used in the attacks.

They did withstand the impact. That's why it took a while before the buildings fell down.

9/11 was a Bush conspiracy to create a pretext for a 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq for oil we never got.

Which actually is pretty funny. I mean, we did see how the same government (aka the same people) handled getting a pretext of invading Iraq.

It sucked and it was obvious.

[Papewaio]

Energy = mass x gravity x height

A building falling down as it did is going to generate a lot of force and hence energy. Falling 400m (approx top) into the lower basements/subway will release a lot of potential energy. All that twistied steel and pulverized concrete is going to also absorb a lot of heat.

If the building was 900,000 tons and it fell on average (half its height) then the force was
= 900,000,000 x 9.8 x 200
= 1,764,000,000,000 Joules

That's a lot of energy

[Strike For The South]

Simply asking a question is not a substitute for critical thought.

[Viking]

You care to explain building 7?

I don't explain anything; I question those who think they can.

LOL, far more than you have

So, what exactly? Aluminium mixed with which impurities under which conditions? How hot?

Surely you are joking. To heat all the members equally so that it pancaked down rather than typing or distorting on any other axis?

This was about the melted steel supposedly found on the ground, not the structural collapse.

To collapse the entire structure straight down through the path of greatest resistance, not once but twice.

It's also the path of the gravity vector. One cannot reason with such things using intuition, you need to run simulations and test with the real thing. Strange and counter-intuitive effects can occur under certain circumstances.

At the time of design the buildings were engineered to withstand the impact of a Boing 707.

And they did withstand the impacts. For a while.

It is also known that a 707 has more energy on impact than the 767s that were used in the attacks.

Well, that's velocity-dependent..