9/11

[Riverwind]

So are you now suggesting that the weight and speed of the planes brought the towers down? I agree that the fire/heat theory is lame as hell, but I'd rather deal with one ridiculous theory at a time.

Why don't you educate yourself on the actual explainations or the collapse rather than making up bogus ones.

The towers came down the planes crashed into the building knocking out floor supports and starting fires. The heat from the fires caused the steel supports for the floors to sag. This in turn caused the floors to buckle and pull the perimeter columns inward. Eventually, the perimeter columns could not support their load any more and started to collapse. Once the collapse started the center columns gave way because they could not absorb the energy from the collapsing floors coming from above.

IOW: it is combination of structral damage and fires that caused the collapse. Can you provide one example of a similar building that experienced the same combination of structural damage and fires?

[PolyNewbie]

Black Dog:Yeah, you cooked up some half baked explanation that a bunch of dupes wired the whole WTC with explosives from top to bottom, all 220 stories of the twin towers plus WTC7, without anyone noticing, and that they did it in the span of a few days.

And then you made some other stuff up on the fly.

I explained that the stuff required to make the explosives go off - wiring - air tubes - whatever was probably installed by a legitimate contractor who thought he was installing something else such as a network of fire alarms, computer communications, loudspeakers, whatever. Then the people who placed the explosives did this in a few days after all the wires were in place.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: it is combination of structral damage and fires that caused the collapse. Can you provide one example of a similar building that experienced the same combination of structural damage and fires?

The world trade center stood after a much longer hotter fire in '75. Also the towers remained standing long after the planes collided and the fuel burned away. So there is two examples.

[PolyNewbie]

Canadian Blue:A scientific theory backed up by the mainstream science community as well as the American Society of Civil Engineer's isn't "lame".

As a matter of fact it is. The NIST report does NOT EXPLAIN how the buildings collapsed it only hypothesises, which doesn't stand up to any scrutiny which is therefore by definition, "lame".

Its not backed up by the mainstream scientific community, you just asume that. The "mainstream scientific community" will not discuss 911. Its off limits in civil engineering classes to discuss this. Most engineers will not discuss 911.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind: it is combination of structral damage and fires that caused the collapse. Can you provide one example of a similar building that experienced the same combination of structural damage and fires?

The world trade center stood after a much longer hotter fire in '75. Also the towers remained standing long after the planes collided and the fuel burned away. So there is two examples.

Wrong. There was no structural damage in 75. Second, the fuel from the planes started the fires that continued to burn in a building that had significant structural damage.

So please answer the question: Can you provide one example of a similar building that experienced the same combination of structural damage and fires?

[Canadian Blue]

Its not backed up by the mainstream scientific community, you just asume that. The "mainstream scientific community" will not discuss 911. Its off limits in civil engineering classes to discuss this. Most engineers will not discuss 911.

Actually they have discussed it.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

As well I'd imagine that a huge jet crashing into a building would cause some structural damage.

[Riverwind]

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Excellent find. Copied here because PN and his buddies don't read websites with information that disrupts their fantaises:

This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.

The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.

However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel

There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions

One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

Why did the building fall so quickly?

The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

What about World Trade Center 7?

I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...

* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?

* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?

* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?

The author respect people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Second, the fuel from the planes started the fires that eventually caused the collapse.

No, fuel burned away withing the first few minutes. Most of it burned off outside the towers during the collapse. Kerosene is highly volatile and burns quickly which it why it makes a great jet fuel.

If fuel fires caused steel to collapse your gas stove wouldn't last long.

The fires made the steel hot enough so that some of it lost only half its strength, less than half the supports were destroyed. The building core had an overbuild factor of 6, the outside had an overbuild of 20. There was no wind that day. The very most favourable (least estimate) of the weakest floor would be 1/4 full strength. This means the building would remain standing even if half the supports got completely destroyed.

Also Kevin Ryan saw results of an experiment (done by NIST) that showed the floors would not sag after being heated to 2000 deg F for several hours. He reported this and lost his job.

Also, the building remained standing perfectly straight and did not display any signs of failure intil it just suddenly collapsed with explosions being heard before the collapse began.

Assuming that fires caused the disaster is easy but its just not a viable scientific explanation.

The above paper quoted is nothing more than a hypothesis and if the building really did collapse under their own weight and straight down it would have been proven. But it cannot even be shown that this is even possible, therefore all the supporters of the official version hypothesise and morons take their hypothesis to be fact.

Take Van Romero for instance, one week he says it had to be CD then another week or two later he supports the official version gets homeland security grants and is now a big lobbyist for the White House. :angry: Anybody can be bought off.

[Canadian Blue]

Riverwind this has been posted before, guess what the response was.

But Australia is allies with the US, Polynewbie couldn't say anything more than that.

I wouldn't be surprised if his theory switches to microwave weapon's within a month.

[Canadian Blue]

Also Kevin Ryan saw results of an experiment (done by NIST) that showed the floors would not sag after being heated to 2000 deg F for several hours. He reported this and lost his job.

Despite the fact UL didn't even certify structural steel.

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/...s-in-loose.html

[Riverwind]

No, fuel burned away withing the first few minutes. Most of it burned off outside the towers during the collapse. Kerosene is highly volatile and burns quickly which it why it makes a great jet fuel.

So if someone tossed a molotov cocktail full of kerosene through the window of your house would you bother to put it out?

Also Kevin Ryan saw results of an experiment (done by NIST) that showed the floors would not sag after being heated to 2000 deg F for several hours. He reported this and lost his job.

Because he was a clueless idiot who was drawing conclusions from reports that he knew nothing about. His entire letter to NIST was full of factual errors (e.g. the UL does not certify structural steel). The US has one of the best whistle blowers protection laws in the world. If he really had a case his job would have been protected.

Assuming that fires caused the disaster is easy but its just not a viable scientific explanation.

And assuming a controlled demolition is? PN your are a lunatic.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:So if someone tossed a molotov cocktail full of kerosene through the window of your house would you bother to put it out?

Of course I would but I would put out a match as well. Fuel oil can have a cooling affect as well as a heating affect- thats all I was trying to point out.

Even with info from the official government apologists and using only their information it is easy to see the the buildings would have remained standing and no collapse would have been initiated.

[Riverwind]

Of course I would but I would put out a match as well. Fuel oil can have a cooling affect as well as a heating affect- thats all I was trying to point out.

Fact 1: Kerosene can set the contents of a typical office building on fire.

Fact 2: The contents of a typical office building can burn hot enough to cause failure of steel supports if the normal fire protections have been damaged or disabled (i.e. insulation knocked off, water sprinkers broken, access by fire fighters blocked).

Fact 3: The impact of the air craft damaged or disabled many of the normal fire protections in the WTC.

Conclusion: a collapse caused by fires + structural damage is the most plausable explaination for what happened to the WTC.

Deny it if you like but you can not change reality.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Fact 2: The contents of a typical office building can burn hot enough to cause failure of steel supports if the normal fire protections have been damaged or disabled (i.e. insulation knocked off, water sprinkers broken, access by fire fighters blocked).

The normal fire protections didn't put the 1975 fire out and it burned for 5 hours. NO structural damage. Plus the NIST report shows most steel never exceeded 500 deg F.

[Riverwind]

The normal fire protections didn't put the 1975 fire out and it burned for 5 hours. NO structural damage. Plus the NIST report shows most steel never exceeded 500 deg F.

Why do I have to explain everything: normal fire protections include insulation around every steel beam. In the 1975 fire all of the insulation was intact. Furthermore, none the of supports were damaged or knocked out by an aircraft. This kind of structural damage makes a failure more likely even if the fire is the same.

That is why the post 9-11 fire safety guidelines no longer accept spray on insulation for steel beams. From this day forward all critical steel beams must be enclosed in concrete.

[jbg]

I think Polynewbie is going to start going on a irrational rant pretty soon, I can't wait.

For a cure for this irrationality, go to this link. They can help.

[jbg]

Yawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Why do I have to explain everything

I can't stop laughing...

Riverwind, insulation isn't permanent protection, the heat eventually gets through. Insulation doesn't add stength and we know some structural memebers had their strength reduced by only as much as half.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, insulation isn't permanent protection, the heat eventually gets through. Insulation doesn't add stength and we know some structural memebers had their strength reduced by only as much as half.

The insulation is still a critical part of the fire protection system. When the planes crashed into the buildings the fire protection system was compromised which led directly to the collapse of the towers. So matter how much you would like to deny it, you cannot compare the 1975 fire to what happened on 9/11. The circumstances were completely different.

This brings us back to the original question. Can your give me one example where a 100 story steel core building was rammed by a jet full of fuel and the building did not collapse? Because if you can give me an example then you assertion that the collapse is unexpected is simply false.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:..you assertion that the collapse is unexpected is simply false.

Oh. I see. You can't pick anything wrong with why I said that so you simply say its false.- invoking that "scientific authority" again ?

[Riverwind]

Oh. I see. You can't pick anything wrong with why I said that so you simply say its false.- invoking that "scientific authority" again ?

I asked you to come up with an example of a 100 story steel core building that did not collapse after impact from a jetliner full of fuel. You could not give me an example. This means your assertion that the events of 9/11 were unexpected is false because there are no similar events that we can compare the events on 9/11 to.

[M.Dancer]

I am amazed that there are still those here who have the time and energy to actually debate loons.

I would have thought by now the conspiracy theorists would have wandere off to the bermuda triangle or at least connect ERII with the heroin trade.....

[Black Dog]

So are you now suggesting that the weight and speed of the planes brought the towers down? I agree that the fire/heat theory is lame as hell, but I'd rather deal with one ridiculous theory at a time.

No. I'm saying that it ramming jet liners into buildings like the Twin Towers is an unprecedented event (as you've already conceded), which invalidates your argument that, since no steel/concrete building has ever collsed from fire, the towers must have been brought down intentionally.

If anything it was the combination of factors that caused the towers to fall, with the weakening of the steel by fire the primary one.

Was Operation Northwoods a real plan to assassinate and kill innocent people as a pretext for war? Or did we lefties just make that up?

What does that have to do with anything?

I'll give you an two examples of "how they did it".

First, if you're planning an Operation Northwoods style attack on your own country, you'd have to make sure that NORAD did not get in the way as they have successfully done for 40 years. You would need a stand-down order and a smokescreen to confuse the military.

Was there a stand-down order? .. Surely you know.

Cite?

Were there 5 wargames going on the very same day? How did 19 cavemen know that? Was it coincidence, happenstance, or just plain luck that "Bin Laden" chose that day to attack?

NORAD runs such simulations virtually every day. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence.

BTW: who hijacked the aircraft?

Additionally, if you're going to implode the buildings and blame it on magic (fire/heat), you'd better make damn sure that no one inspects the crime scene and physical evidence.

After the attack, the US scooped up all the concrete/debris/EVIDENCE and shipped it to China and India with the quickness without a thorough examination of the evidence. In fact, by the same demolition company that scooped up the Oklahoma City Bombing debris.

How many people would know of the fraud at this point outside of the people who planned it

You mean other than the hundreds of people who would neccesarily be directly involved with the actual conduct of the operation?

I explained that the stuff required to make the explosives go off - wiring - air tubes - whatever was probably installed by a legitimate contractor who thought he was installing something else such as a network of fire alarms, computer communications, loudspeakers, whatever. Then the people who placed the explosives did this in a few days after all the wires were in place.

So you're basically saying there's no difference between wiring a building for demolition (a complex procedure carried out by experts in teh field) can be done by any joe-schmoe electrician? Uh. Huh.

The world trade center stood after a much longer hotter fire in '75. Also the towers remained standing long after the planes collided and the fuel burned away. So there is two examples.

Even if the fuel had "burned away" there was plenty of material to fuel the fire. Paper, furniture, drywall, people....

[PolyNewbie]

If anything it was the combination of factors that caused the towers to fall, with the weakening of the steel by fire the primary one.

It can easily be shown that the fires and damage would not have been sufficient to collapse the towers under their own weight. Less than half the steel vertical load bearing supports was destroyed and and the remaining supports had greater strength than half the original due to temp increase. The buildings were over built by six in the middle and 20 on the outside. Floors were tested and connections for these would have withstood a 2000 deg F temperature for several hours (Kevin Ryan). Therefore fires and damage did not cause the building to collapse. It should have remained standing with no signs of global cotastrophy like both towers did after the collapse & fires for 1/2 hour and over 1 hour.

[PolyNewbie]

Black Dog:So you're basically saying there's no difference between wiring a building for demolition (a complex procedure carried out by experts in teh field) can be done by any joe-schmoe electrician? Uh. Huh.

No I am not saying that.

Black Dog:Cite? (wrt:Was there a stand-down order? .. Surely you know.

)

Two people have testified in congressional hearings that Cheney gave a defence stand down order after both wtc's were hit while at the Pentagon for Pentagon/White House defences while there was in inbound target. He repeated the order several times. Want a link ?, because I'll get one for you but lets talk about how important this is first.