Technical question on WTC collapse

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
46
Newfoundland!
I don't think that's a very satifying answer Herm. Certainly there would have been hesitation to shoot down passenger planes but as the official investigation points out the intercepters did not intercept, did not persue, and ultimately did not interfere with the passage of the aircraft in any way. Why does the official conspiracy theory have so many easily satisfied adherants? Forgive me I'm just a slow thinking forest aquatic animal and I can't understand how nomadic terrorists could overcome a dozen levels of the most sophisticated national security aparatus on the planet, especially when I see they did it four times on the same day while extensive air security exercises were being conducted on the very same day in the very same airspace, I'm just to stupid to get it all straight in my little head.:lol:

what would be the point of getting a plane to intercept the hijacked one? it wouldn't have any influence without forcing a crash, which would be as bad as shooting it down would. Basically a hijacked plane can't be stopped until the new pilot decides to do what he's told or land somewhere.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
what would be the point of getting a plane to intercept the hijacked one? it wouldn't have any influence without forcing a crash, which would be as bad as shooting it down would. Basically a hijacked plane can't be stopped until the new pilot decides to do what he's told or land somewhere.

And what would be the point of intercepting an airliner when the hijackers are CIA Operatives? Why would the govt mess up their own plans?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
What the hell would you know about steel and the effects of impact and/or heat on it?

Aaaah, your mom eats morning wood.

I've been an industrial mechanic for 30 years, once in a while I work with metal and combustion processes, controls, actuation, fluid logics etc; and I can use a screwdriver.:lol:
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
One of my favorite pitchers of the past, Steve Carlton, of the Philadelphia Phillies
was very good at what he did. He hardly ever talked to the press. Tightlipped as heck.

But after retirement he let loose what he thought several times.

Man... what a rightwing looney bin.

Had no idea.

This memory came to me after reading a particularly inspiring Darkbeaver post.

:)
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I've been an industrial mechanic for 30 years, once in a while I work with metal and combustion processes, controls, actuation, fluid logics etc; and I can use a screwdriver.:lol:
All that and a bag of chips eh!!! And you still believe in these silly theories?

I think it's your political ideology that has clouded your mind.

I'm out of orange juice, will a Ceasar be sufficient?
thanks to your previous record of posts, i've no idea whether to take that seriously
Don't.
Since I won't be forwarding you my resume it should have little effect on our relationship. As far as my previous posts goes, if your level of comprehension isn't up to snuff is that really my fault or yours.:lol:
Yours.
if you're as intelligent as you seem, the fault is yours for not realising that most people won't be up to your standards.
The serious symptom of the socialist mindset.
One of my favorite pitchers of the past, Steve Carlton, of the Philadelphia Phillies
was very good at what he did. He hardly ever talked to the press. Tightlipped as heck.

But after retirement he let loose what he thought several times.

Man... what a rightwing looney bin.

Had no idea.

This memory came to me after reading a particularly inspiring Darkbeaver post.

:)
I get that, rotflmffao!!!
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I have a question, actually a couple. When they began cleaning up the debris, did they use cutters to break up the size of some of those girders? I mean if you watch the videos you can see that there was still sections of the tower standing after the collapse was finished, and then the skeleton fell afterwards. If it really was charges that brought down the tower, wouldn't the bottom have come apart first? Do demolitions ever start from the top of a building?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I have a question, actually a couple. When they began cleaning up the debris, did they use cutters to break up the size of some of those girders?
From what i watched, they were using Oxy/acetalene torches and gas powered chop saws to cut the steel down to size.
I mean if you watch the videos you can see that there was still sections of the tower standing after the collapse was finished, and then the skeleton fell afterwards. If it really was charges that brought down the tower, wouldn't the bottom have come apart first?
For the correct desired effect to happen, I beleive it would be the bottom center to start. That would allow debris to be funneled inward, then as you wanted each floor to compact the charges would have gone upward vertically. That is based on all the footage I have seen of controlled Demo's.

Now, for something interesting...

When I worked in mining, blasting caps have a tendancy to have a failure rate. The more you use, the greater the likelihood you're going to have failure. In the case of the WTC, the should have been numurous caps and or primers in the debris field, yet no workers suffer injury from coming into contact with one via impact or torch. Yet there were litteraly hundreds of torches in the pit.

Do demolitions ever start from the top of a building?
Nope.

In this case, I would suspect that the theories are the result of people that are not aware of the fact that the outside structure of the WTC was the strongest point of the building. This would lead to the funneling effect we saw during the collaps, as each floor drove itself into the next.

You will also note in all the footage, the puffs of smoke that blow out windows, precede the down fall. That is to say they pop as the building comes down, they are in fact going down, not up as they would in a controlled demo.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
I have a question, actually a couple. When they began cleaning up the debris, did they use cutters to break up the size of some of those girders? I mean if you watch the videos you can see that there was still sections of the tower standing after the collapse was finished, and then the skeleton fell afterwards. If it really was charges that brought down the tower, wouldn't the bottom have come apart first? Do demolitions ever start from the top of a building?

Here are a couple of samples.

Be your own judge.



Notice the racket they make when the explosives go off.

Oh, and for the record, the tallest building ever imploded was in Detroit at over 400 feet in height.

 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Nice vids ITN...

I forgot to mention, thie free fall bullshyte, is just that, bullshyte...

The fact that the collaps was being passed by debris coming away from the building, is proof enough of that.

Not that I expect anyone led by political ideologies and not clear thinking to accept that.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Thanks for the feedback fellas. Kinda what I expected. I went back to youtube this week after being kinda perturbed by this thread. Unbelievable how many videos there are sponsored by ALCAN and the likes...
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Rosie O'Donut - Demolitions Expert


http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html

March 30, 2007 CLICK TO ENLARGE



Rosie O'Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell, a co-host of ABC talk show The View, made comments on the show that renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
While saying she didn’t know what to believe about the U.S. government’s involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade
1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”
She continued: “To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason.” (Watch the clip here)
For those interested in what physicist and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7’s collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, PM offers these notes:
1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.
Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told PM that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report).
The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told PM, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.
2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melting”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.
Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.
3. Demolition experts tell PM that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.
NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”​
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Is that what sparked the interest in this thread again...Rosie O'IDon'tno...
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Yup - the mouth that roared let loose with more of her edumacation....

Ph.D. in Yelling and Obnoxious Uncontrolled Behavior