Technical question on WTC collapse

[EagleSmack]

Yes the US has too much at stake but what about the Iraqi people. Their stake is even greater and especially that there is a good possibility, that when you do finally leave, they will revert back to what they were before. If you take a lesson from the history of Iraq and Afghanistan you will see they do not want anything to do with outsiders. They will endure anything from their own but not outsiders.
Maybe if we studied a little bit more history we could really help these people in a way that would help them develop into a country of their liking and not our standards.

Iraq plunging into chaos after we leave is a possibility. I would not bet against that. However if we can give the current Iraqi govt a chance to stand and fight on their own their may be a chance. There is hope in that option.

However if we leave right now they have no chance.

 

[CDNBear]

Hi Herm..

I've read a great many arguments and the one that struck me the most was an engineer's paper who studied the WTC crime from the standpoint of standard i.e 'accepted' fire investigation techniques and concluded that there simply wouldn't have been sufficient oxygen present in the structure to raise the temperature of the burning material ...long enough and hot enough to structurally weaken the central core and collapse the building....

The larger question in my mind has always been..."Why is there doubt?"

Why is it that so many people actually entertain the 'conspiracy theories'....tells us something I think...

That would be a true assessment had the building been of a typical design and had a central core. It in fact did not, they were the first of their kind, exoskeletal structure(not sure of the tech term for them). The buildings had elevator shafts in the center, that were essentially free floating structures of their own, but they were not load bearing, as to the structure itself.

 

[darkbeaver]

A criminal and terrorist act I grant you. Spun into a rationale for war... I grant you that as well.

But who do you think did it?

If you were to say that you think Al Queda was responsible for it and Bush seized on that as an opportunity to go to war in Iraq I would not be so against that opinion. There is indeed logic to that.

However when people say it was orchrestrated by the US Govt and Al Queda was completely innocent... well you lose me and lose a lot of credibility.

So your logic allows you to see the attack siezed upon by Bush as an oportunity to go to war but you can't see which of the two factions could call down the air defence, pay for and arrange demolition, control the congressional investigation and report, remove evidence from a crime scene and control main stream media coverage of the event, and I'll mention oil.
That Al-Kayda is powerful America should give up now.:smile:

 

[Toro]

Why is it that so many people actually entertain the 'conspiracy theories'....tells us something I think...

It tells us about human nature, and the need to find explanations and patterns in a complex world.

 

[danieltowsey]

Oh course the buildings had a core support they had 47 of them

 

[CDNBear]

Oh course the buildings had a core support they had 47 of them

8O
Once again proving that you know very littel about the WTC designs.

They were the first of their kind, a near external support system, to increase the available space within.

Though the internal structure was load bearing, it did not support the loads that a structure of simular proportion or traditional structural design.

What was hailed as its advantages, was actually become their down fall, pardon the pun.

But hey, don't let facts stress you out.

 

[danieltowsey]

As usual your ego is all you have..you don't know what your talking about..

 

[CDNBear]

As usual your ego is all you have..you don't know what your talking about..

lmao, speaking of ego's. Umm ya, that would be a better responce if you could prove me wrong, but seeing as you can't, because I'm right as every structural engineer and Architect who has studied the blue prints of the building has stated.

Go on, find me an engineer or an architect that states that the colomns in the core of the building were load bearing in the tradition building models and that the exterior structure was not the main load bearing structure. Go on, go now and we'll wait for ya here.

 

[CDNBear]

lmao, speaking of ego's. Umm ya, that would be a better responce if you could prove me wrong, but seeing as you can't, because I'm right as every structural engineer and Architect who has studied the blue prints of the building has stated.

Go on, find me an engineer or an architect that states that the colomns in the core of the building were load bearing in the tradition building models and that the exterior structure was not the main load bearing structure. Go on, go now and we'll wait for ya here.

Seeing as you were in this thread when I posted it and then bailed shortly afterwards, my guess is you just got the smack down you richly deserved and you can not possibly back up your crap.:lol:

Thanx for coming out though, better luck next time.;-)


Damn I'm a smug asshole eh?:lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

So your logic allows you to see the attack siezed upon by Bush as an oportunity to go to war but you can't see which of the two factions could call down the air defence, pay for and arrange demolition, control the congressional investigation and report, remove evidence from a crime scene and control main stream media coverage of the event, and I'll mention oil.
That Al-Kayda is powerful America should give up now.:smile:

As I read this I suddenly heard the theme from the Twilight Zone going off in my head.

Please stick to the Shag Harbor coverup and leave important debates to people who actually make sense.

 

[darkbeaver]

But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those buildings, engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the explosives?
This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI, CIA, and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would terrorists engineer a building to implode? Wouldn’t they want to cause even more damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more havoc and destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And if they’d planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have bothered hijacking and flying planes into them? Perhaps WTC7 was demolished to destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, I don’t know. But this is how I began to question the official story about 9-11.
Recently I learned that President Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 - yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.
In conclusion, I’ll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some level of government complicity or foreknowledge. physics911.net/closerlook

 

[eh1eh]

Seeing as you were in this thread when I posted it and then bailed shortly afterwards, my guess is you just got the smack down you richly deserved and you can not possibly back up your crap.:lol:

Thanx for coming out though, better luck next time.;-)


Damn I'm a smug asshole eh?:lol:

He had 24 hrs. 2 minutes I found that it was the outer support cloumns that were the down fall of the towers. Here.
It's feels good to be smug when you've done the research eh Bear. LOL;-)

 

[CDNBear]

 

[Tonington]

I was just wondering, there was lots of discussion earlier about the temperature on the columns. Isn't heat a end product when a moving body contacts a stable body? I can't remember for sure, but I thought kinetic energy is converted to heat in that case. 5600 megajoules is a lot of energy ( A 767 filled up moving at the average reported estimates for velocity ~880km/h.)

 

[CDNBear]

I was just wondering, there was lots of discussion earlier about the temperature on the columns. Isn't heat a end product when a moving body contacts a stable body? I can't remember for sure, but I thought kinetic energy is converted to heat in that case. 5600 megajoules is a lot of energy ( A 767 filled up moving at the average reported estimates for velocity ~880km/h.)

I believe so Ton, I won't get the scientific numbers, but I'll beat on some structural steel I have in my shop tomorrow for a few minutes and then feel it and see.

 

[Tonington]

I believe so Ton, I won't get the scientific numbers, but I'll beat on some structural steel I have in my shop tomorrow for a few minutes and then feel it and see.

Lol, just make sure it's not holding anything up

 

[CDNBear]

Lol, just make sure it's not holding anything up

Thanx, that coulda hurt, lmao!!!

I know this will just feed the CTard patrol, but I'm a very touch/see/try oriented kinda guy, call it a throw back to my neanderthal origins, but I like to test stuf with practical applications, as you are well aware, I'm no science type.

I have these markers, well they're more like crayons, that tell you what temp the metal is when you touch it the metal you're heating. Different colours, different temps. They come in handy when preheating aluminium.

I took a piece of room temp structural steel and put it in my brake press, it wouldn't buckle.

I heated a piece of structural steel with a torch to around 650 degrees F, guess what happend when I put it in my brake press?

It buckled.

I didn't focus the heat, I used a rosebud and disperced it over a wide area, so it is highly unlikely that I even, evenly heated it, but it buckled none the less.

Do you realize, that in my trade and surrounding trades, I have not found one CT believer.

I wonder why that is?

 

[Tonington]

Thanx, that coulda hurt, lmao!!!

I know this will just feed the CTard patrol, but I'm a very touch/see/try oriented kinda guy, call it a throw back to my neanderthal origins, but I like to test stuf with practical applications, as you are well aware, I'm no science type.

I have these markers, well they're more like crayons, that tell you what temp the metal is when you touch it the metal you're heating. Different colours, different temps. They come in handy when preheating aluminium.

I took a piece of room temp structural steel and put it in my brake press, it wouldn't buckle.

I heated a piece of structural steel with a torch to around 650 degrees F, guess what happend when I put it in my brake press?

It buckled.

I didn't focus the heat, I used a rosebud and disperced it over a wide area, so it is highly unlikely that I even, evenly heated it, but it buckled none the less.

Do you realize, that in my trade and surrounding trades, I have not found one CT believer.

I wonder why that is?

Lol, too damned impractical to believe maybe.

I remeber metal shop in high school, awesome. I made a c-clamp.

 

[hermanntrude]

Thanx, that coulda hurt, lmao!!!

I know this will just feed the CTard patrol, but I'm a very touch/see/try oriented kinda guy, call it a throw back to my neanderthal origins, but I like to test stuf with practical applications, as you are well aware, I'm no science type.

I have these markers, well they're more like crayons, that tell you what temp the metal is when you touch it the metal you're heating. Different colours, different temps. They come in handy when preheating aluminium.

I took a piece of room temp structural steel and put it in my brake press, it wouldn't buckle.

I heated a piece of structural steel with a torch to around 650 degrees F, guess what happend when I put it in my brake press?

It buckled.

I didn't focus the heat, I used a rosebud and disperced it over a wide area, so it is highly unlikely that I even, evenly heated it, but it buckled none the less.

Do you realize, that in my trade and surrounding trades, I have not found one CT believer.

I wonder why that is?

excellent work bear! I like the way you think. I too am an experimental scientist. Throw twenty theories at me and they're still theories but test one experimentally and it suddenly means a lot more

 

[darkbeaver]

Both the towers came down at near free fall speed, that means they met no resistance, that means they did not pancake, if they had the resistance would have dramatically increased the time. The evidence points to demolition.