9/11

[Papewaio]

Not all metal is melted and cast. There is a whole industry based on manipulating hot iron and steel.

So steel bends as its gets hotter and at temperatures a person with a bellows can create using coal. Then using a hammer a person can generate enough force to bend steel.

This person is called a smith. It used to be such a common profession that one of the most common surnames is Smith.

Now take a hot temperature going for longer then used in a forge and apply not the pressure of a human wield hammer but the weight of twenty stories. Once it starts collapsing it would be a cascading failure as the momentum would add even more force. It goes from being a hammer used as a paper weight to one of a hammer being used to strike a blow as twenty plus stories collapse 3m onto the floor below and then they combine and collapse further with more speed and hence more energy.

[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.

[Fragony]

Hmm, interesting. So in other words you are calling me stupid? Why the vitriol? Just because I don't any accept any official story about the 9/11 incident? Whether it's a 9/11 "truther" or the mainstream news media? If I'm supposed to accept the mainstream media which one? The US? France? Al Jazeera? Pravda? BBC?


Since you mention Murrow I'll assume for now you're American? So Brian Williams was unbiased? Yeah, he never lied. And Fox News is fair and balanced too...

I think you miss my point. You say read both sides and then let adversarial process uncover the truth. Who has time to do that? There are only 24 hours in the day.
I'm saying there are no "both sides". It's all ice cream, you just pick your flavor. And every one of them tastes good, makes you feel good for awhile, but eventually you're going to regret eating it.
Every source is tainted to one degree or another. And the only real agenda you can follow is money, or power...or sex. They are interwoven and you can trade one for another.

As to my "a good lie" comment, that is self evident. If you can't see that I don't know how to help you. Perhaps you could explain why Snopes is rife with so many articles marked as status: "mixed" or "multiple"? Many people have fallen for those silly little chain emails. Just imagine how elaborate the lie if you have a media publisher in your pocket.

Not calling you an idiot but Acin is right on how metal works, wielders would get out of business if metal couldn't be bended. As for the other buildings, it is highly likely that they were already equiped with explosives, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Secret services are really effective so they probably knew way in advace that this could happen. Damage control. It's rediculous to believe this was an inside job, not implying you say that

[Risasi]

Not calling you an idiot but...

"This is asinine."

as·i·nine
ˈasəˌnīn
adjective
extremely stupid or foolish.

"People who are convinced the news is lying to them are just too dumb to understand"...

"Smarten up and realize that"

Sure he wasn't. Don't worry, I'm not offended. I'm merely pointing out that much of his counterpoint was attack.

...Acin is right on how metal works, wielders would get out of business if metal couldn't be bended. As for the other buildings, it is highly likely that they were already equiped with explosives, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Secret services are really effective so they probably knew way in advace that this could happen. Damage control. It's rediculous to believe this was an inside job, not implying you say that

I find the part I bolded extremely interesting. Is that your explanation for Building 7? I mean...I guess that makes sense, since the alphabet soup agencies were tenants of that building. I'm sure they just happened to have enough explosives laying around to cause the building to pancake in on its footprint too. Or are you saying they kept the entire building wired up for just such an emergency?

Also, secret services are really effective? Meaning they should have known about the attack ahead of time? Or they are just really effective in controlled demolition, but not intelligence?

I've also seen some of the girders from the WTC site, in person (well, allegedly they are). It is in a memorial site in the middle of the United States. As far as I know rest of the evidence...er, I mean debris was promptly sold for scrap and shipped to Russia or China, I think.

[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

[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!

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hate this thread so much.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Hooahguy]

Conspiracy theories aside, you do realize that not all fires are the same nor do they have the same affect on buildings right?

[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.

[Risasi]

@Husar:
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/inde...nter_Site_Maps

This map should help a little.


Also, here is video of building 7's demise:
https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

And no, it was not the only thing I took from your post. However I have always been doubtful of what to believe about the twin towers. This is why I focus on building 7. It is the most blatant example of something that doesn't add up. I lies roughly 100m from the plaza. It is separated from the other two buildings. Yet it fell down also.

By the way. Can anyone else name the other buildings in the entire world which have "fallen down". Think big. Like skyscrapers in Japan during the earthquakes. Pripyat. Over the past 200 years.

[Hooahguy]

By the way. Can anyone else name the other buildings in the entire world which have "fallen down". Think big. Like skyscrapers in Japan during the earthquakes. Pripyat. Over the past 200 years.

Simple google search

[Husar]

@Husar:
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/inde...nter_Site_Maps

This map should help a little.


Also, here is video of building 7's demise:
https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

And no, it was not the only thing I took from your post. However I have always been doubtful of what to believe about the twin towers. This is why I focus on building 7. It is the most blatant example of something that doesn't add up. I lies roughly 100m from the plaza. It is separated from the other two buildings. Yet it fell down also.

And why would someone blow up a comparatively insignificant building to start a war or whatever the point was? You make it sound like the whole affair was an elaborate insurance scam of the owner...

And this is why the focus should be on the twin towers, because they were the important part. collateral damage happens and whether you can understand it is irrelevant. It's hard to say why building 7 dropped that way without knowing how exactly it was damaged. How many people died in building 7 anyway and would that number "justify" an evil cabal blowing it up to start a war?

By the way. Can anyone else name the other buildings in the entire world which have "fallen down". Think big. Like skyscrapers in Japan during the earthquakes. Pripyat. Over the past 200 years.

How would any of these comparisons help?

[Greyblades]

This thread.

[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.