9-11 coincidence

[Cannuck]

Steel frame buildings just don't as a rule collapse from fire

As a rule no. That's because steel is mostly used on commercial buildings and often has insulation (which depending on the building type and use may be dictated by the fire code. In steel buildings without insulation, collapse is the rule when fire goes unchecked. Since the impact of the planes removed the insulation from the steel and, since the fire went unchecked, the failure of the steel in the WTC buildings was, in hindsight, very predictable.....whether amateur structural engineers like yourself wish to acknowledge this simple fact or not.

and they sure as hell don't collapse at free fall speed like wtc-1, 2, & 7

What Toro said.

 

[lone wolf]

Point is, South Tower was hit off centre. Every video reveals the major fires were on its east side. Most of its structural damage was on its east side. Debris from impact would not have even touched major portions of the west side. Why didn't it topple?

Wolf

 

[EagleSmack]

Plane enters building on one side... blows out through the other... but you still say no debris made it through?

 

[Curiosity]

........It was 1987!

At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col . Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir," continued Ollie.

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.

"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.

"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.

"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.


By the way, that senator was Al Gore!

Also:

Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."

However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.

Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.

 

[EagleSmack]

Well we don't want to offend his memory.

 

[#juan]

As a rule no. That's because steel is mostly used on commercial buildings and often has insulation (which depending on the building type and use may be dictated by the fire code. In steel buildings without insulation, collapse is the rule when fire goes unchecked. Since the impact of the planes removed the insulation from the steel and, since the fire went unchecked, the failure of the steel in the WTC buildings was, in hindsight, very predictable.....whether amateur structural engineers like yourself wish to acknowledge this simple fact or not.

I am a mechanical engineer, not a structural engineer but I can certainly go along with the thoughts about the insulation being blown off the steel in the local area of the aircraft impact. in WTC1 & 2, though I didn't think the fires were intense enough to weaken the steel to that extent. That was not the case in bldg 7 where no aircraft hit.

 

[lone wolf]

Plane enters building on one side... blows out through the other... but you still say no debris made it through?

Au contraire! A LOT of debris made it through (where did I say it hadn't?) Momentum carried the heaviest - ie: titanium engine shafts - directly along UA's flightpath and almost straight through the other side. Inertia would have spread debris within the structure along a cone-shaped path (sort of like a short-barrel shotgun) In a collision between aluminium and steel, the steel's going to win every time.

I am saying that it doesn't seem likely that debris could have behaved like a sandblaster and removed enough fire protection for a heat-caused failure of structural steel in the majority of the core or on the west side. I am not saying I know. I am trying to understand why. Sort of goes against every erector set tower that's even been knocked down.

Wolf

Edit: Perhaps I am getting my orientation all wrong. My thoughts are North Tower was struck on its north side, South on its south. New York isn't my turf....

 

[Logic 7]

As a rule no. That's because steel is mostly used on commercial buildings and often has insulation (which depending on the building type and use may be dictated by the fire code. In steel buildings without insulation, collapse is the rule when fire goes unchecked. Since the impact of the planes removed the insulation from the steel and, since the fire went unchecked, the failure of the steel in the WTC buildings was, in hindsight, very predictable.....whether amateur structural engineers like yourself wish to acknowledge this simple fact or not.





What Toro said.

Strange as it is, just like everything sorrounding 9-11, you say failure of the steel was very predictable, however how would explain, that after the first plane crashed, people were going out of the building, then a voice to the wtc intercom came and said, everyone should stay in their office, the building is very secure. how would you explain that?

 

[Logic 7]

........It was 1987!

At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col . Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir," continued Ollie.

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.

Oussama bin laden was a cia warrior for the mujaheedeen at that time, get real for once.

 

[Walter]

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name,
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!

Ollie actually mentioned Abu Nidal as the terrorist and the person asking the questions was not the fat man you mentioned but in fact a dem staffer named John Fields.

 

[EagleSmack]

Oussama bin laden was a cia warrior for the mujaheedeen at that time, get real for once.

WRONG.

During the Afghan-Soviet War Osama was outspoken against CIA Operatives and was kept away from them. The Afghan Rebels kept him away from the CIA when they were doing business because they did not want this Saudi guy screwing things up.

 

[EagleSmack]

Point is, South Tower was hit off centre. Every video reveals the major fires were on its east side. Most of its structural damage was on its east side. Debris from impact would not have even touched major portions of the west side. Why didn't it topple?

Wolf

Here

 

[EagleSmack]

Au contraire! A LOT of debris made it through (where did I say it hadn't?) Momentum carried the heaviest - ie: titanium engine shafts - directly along UA's flightpath and almost straight through the other side. Inertia would have spread debris within the structure along a cone-shaped path (sort of like a short-barrel shotgun) In a collision between aluminium and steel, the steel's going to win every time.

I am saying that it doesn't seem likely that debris could have behaved like a sandblaster and removed enough fire protection for a heat-caused failure of structural steel in the majority of the core or on the west side. I am not saying I know. I am trying to understand why. Sort of goes against every erector set tower that's even been knocked down.

Wolf

Edit: Perhaps I am getting my orientation all wrong. My thoughts are North Tower was struck on its north side, South on its south. New York isn't my turf....

Just a note on fire protection... you do not need a sand blaster to remove it. It is sprayed on and hardens but it does not harden like concrete. It can be scraped away with a screw driver with easy and once you can get your hands into it you can pull it off in clumps. I used to install telephone and data cabling and worked in many office buildings. Just pulling a bundle of phone cable will knock the stuff off with ease. Now replace the phone cable bundle with a jumbo jet... goodbye fire protection.

WTC 1 was hit on a N-S heading and WTC 2 was hit on an W-E heading.

 

[#juan]

Just a note on fire protection... you do not need a sand blaster to remove it. It is sprayed on and hardens but it does not harden like concrete. It can be scraped away with a screw driver with easy and once you can get your hands into it you can pull it off in clumps. I used to install telephone and data cabling and worked in many office buildings. Just pulling a bundle of phone cable will knock the stuff off with ease. Now replace the phone cable bundle with a jumbo jet... goodbye fire protection.

WTC 1 was hit on a N-S heading and WTC 2 was hit on an W-E heading.

From which heading was WTC 7 hit?

 

[hermanntrude]

plus of course a giant shockwave might well knock insulation off. And I seem to remember seeing a documentary which claimed that the insulation may not have been maintained as it should have been anyway, and hence had gaps in it, making useless.

 

[hermanntrude]

From which heading was WTC 7 hit?

WTC 7 is a bit of a mystery to me too. But I think it's a little melodramatic to assume that it's nothing to do with the other two buildings which had just been hit by planes, and actually it was a demolition... it doesn't make sense that way. I'm no engineer and cannot put forth any suggestions for why it came down, but I feel quite confident that it was something to do with those two planes

 

[Logic 7]

WTC 7 is a bit of a mystery to me too. But I think it's a little melodramatic to assume that it's nothing to do with the other two buildings which had just been hit by planes, and actually it was a demolition... it doesn't make sense that way. I'm no engineer and cannot put forth any suggestions for why it came down, but I feel quite confident that it was something to do with those two planes

There is building just right next to the wtc, that survived, the only reason they had to destroyed building 7,is because CIA, NSA ,FBI, all the evidence of 9-11 were there.

 

[Toro]

There is building just right next to the wtc, that survived, the only reason they had to destroyed building 7,is because CIA, NSA ,FBI, all the evidence of 9-11 were there.

Don't forget the holograms too!

 

[Just the Facts]

Strange as it is, just like everything sorrounding 9-11, you say failure of the steel was very predictable, however how would explain, that after the first plane crashed, people were going out of the building, then a voice to the wtc intercom came and said, everyone should stay in their office, the building is very secure. how would you explain that?

I'm pretty sure that intercom directive was in the OTHER tower.

Explained again.

Logic is worthless without facts.

We had flat screen monitors on the walls in the lobby normally showing the financial news, but right now they were all showing tower 1 next to us on fire. We were being told that possibly a small plane had hit tower 1, that our tower was secure, that we were as safe here as on the ground, and that it was safe to return to our offices if we chose.

http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/10939

 

[Just the Facts]

WTC 4, 5 and six, though badly damaged, remained standing

Just barely. They weren't anywhere near as tall 7, so didn't have anywhere near the load to bear.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/damage.map.html