9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
like i have mentioned before, the dimensions of the core columns were given in the 911 commission report.
it must also be remembered that the lions share of this heat would have been funneled up through the center of the building, right where it would do the most damage.
psikeyhackr
Configuration has a lot to do with how long steel will resist heat. As leopold pointed out, the specs for the steel are in there. But it can be taken as a given that some of that steel was several inches thick, the columns about twice as thick as the steel in the outer walls for any one level. Several inches of steel can be expected to lose 50% of it's strength in about an hour if it is exposed to 1000F temps. The amount of steel is relatively unimportant, it is the cross sectional area that determines the conductivity for heat and it is the smallest cross sectional area that will fail first, all other conditions being equal. It's the same for electrical wire, the fuse is a smaller wire that, while carrying a current equal to the rest of the wire, will fail first before the rest of the wire even gets hot when exposed to too much current EVEN IF THE FUSE IS EXACTLY EQUAL IN MASS OF METAL TO A SIMILAR LENGTH OF NORMAL WIRE. That is because the fuse wire has a smaller cross section.
Even shape will influence resistance. Consider four cases...
1. Flat sheet-largest cross section for exposure(energy uptake), least cross section for conductivity(energy dump).
2. I beam Only marginally better for exposure and marginally more conductive. It's basically folded(shaped)flat sheet.
3. Hollow tube Low exposure, good conduction(especially with center webbing or other structural mass). Can be square or rectangular(box columns), but circular cross section is strongest. Could be cooled with water on the inside during a fire, making them impervious to the effects of heat.
4. Solid beam Lowest exposure, highest conductivity, but not as structurally strong(pound for pound)as a hollow tube or shaped flat sheet(modulus).
The Twin Towers were basically shaped flat sheet for the outer frame and I beams for the core columns, though there were some box columns in the corners of the core, they were in the minority. They were supposed to have fire protection but it was not much more than high density styrofoam, easily knocked off by any violence(such as a 125 ton aircraft hitting the building at about 500 mph)or spray foam of even less structural integrity. Multi-floor fires exposed damaged and undamaged steel to about 1000F for one hour in building Two before enough steel received enough heat to lose enough strength so a point was reached that the rest of the steel could not carry the load, Tower Two took longer basically because there was less building above the fire zone and more symmetrical damage. No other facts are needed to explain the collapses. And Building 7 had the misfortune to be about 50 feet too close to Tower 1, everything else is detail.
Grumpy
Configuration has a lot to do with how long steel will resist heat. As leopold pointed out, the specs for the steel are in there. But it can be taken as a given that some of that steel was several inches thick, the columns about twice as thick as the steel in the outer walls for any one level. Several inches of steel can be expected to lose 50% of it's strength in about an hour if it is exposed to 1000F temps. The amount of steel is relatively unimportant, it is the cross sectional area that determines the conductivity for heat and it is the smallest cross sectional area that will fail first, all other conditions being equal. It's the same for electrical wire, the fuse is a smaller wire that, while carrying a current equal to the rest of the wire, will fail first before the rest of the wire even gets hot when exposed to too much current EVEN IF THE FUSE IS EXACTLY EQUAL IN MASS OF METAL TO A SIMILAR LENGTH OF NORMAL WIRE. That is because the fuse wire has a smaller cross section.
Even shape will influence resistance. Consider four cases...
1. Flat sheet-largest cross section for exposure(energy uptake), least cross section for conductivity(energy dump).
2. I beam Only marginally better for exposure and marginally more conductive. It's basically folded(shaped)flat sheet.
3. Hollow tube Low exposure, good conduction(especially with center webbing or other structural mass). Can be square or rectangular(box columns), but circular cross section is strongest. Could be cooled with water on the inside during a fire, making them impervious to the effects of heat.
4. Solid beam Lowest exposure, highest conductivity, but not as structurally strong(pound for pound)as a hollow tube or shaped flat sheet(modulus).
The Twin Towers were basically shaped flat sheet for the outer frame and I beams for the core columns, though there were some box columns in the corners of the core, they were in the minority. They were supposed to have fire protection but it was not much more than high density styrofoam, easily knocked off by any violence(such as a 125 ton aircraft hitting the building at about 500 mph)or spray foam of even less structural integrity. Multi-floor fires exposed damaged and undamaged steel to about 1000F for one hour in building Two before enough steel received enough heat to lose enough strength so a point was reached that the rest of the steel could not carry the load, Tower Two took longer basically because there was less building above the fire zone and more symmetrical damage. No other facts are needed to explain the collapses. And Building 7 had the misfortune to be about 50 feet too close to Tower 1, everything else is detail.
Grumpy
pr0xyt0xin
Registered Member
This is all fascinating. I can't say I ever believed in the conspiracy itself, but I appreciate keeping one's mind open to government corruption and all possible alternatives of a given situation.
Grumpy specifically, your science seems quite sound. Should make for good conversation next time someone brings this up at a cocktail party.
Grumpy specifically, your science seems quite sound. Should make for good conversation next time someone brings this up at a cocktail party.
This is all fascinating. I can't say I ever believed in the conspiracy itself, but I appreciate keeping one's mind open to government corruption and all possible alternatives of a given situation.
Grumpy specifically, your science seems quite sound. Should make for good conversation next time someone brings this up at a cocktail party.
Grumpy knows his stuff.
There's no need to keep an open mind to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. All the "scientific research" conducted by its proponents are published in vanity press magazines, and its proponents don't understand basic physics.
This is all fascinating. I can't say I ever believed in the conspiracy itself, but I appreciate keeping one's mind open to government corruption and all possible alternatives of a given situation.
Grumpy specifically, your science seems quite sound. Should make for good conversation next time someone brings this up at a cocktail party.
Yeah, this is very scientific:
So how many feet did the bottom of that tilted portion have to move horizontally for that to happen? How many columns had to break? So scientific to not wonder about that.
psik
psikeyhackr
Once it failed the process went to completion. It isn't how many feet it moved, it is that it started moving in the first place that is the point of failure. Ever seen video of a tower crane fail? Initially it is very hard to see any movement, but once the movement initiates the tower crane is doomed.
Enough so that the rest cannot hold the weight. NIST has details on what is known of the initial damage, the areas of fire exposed steel and what can be seen from the exterior of the collapse initiation. None of it is new science, we've known that unprotected steel fails in fires for over 100 years. The WTC was not unique in that.
Grumpy
Once it failed the process went to completion. It isn't how many feet it moved, it is that it started moving in the first place that is the point of failure. Ever seen video of a tower crane fail? Initially it is very hard to see any movement, but once the movement initiates the tower crane is doomed.
Enough so that the rest cannot hold the weight. NIST has details on what is known of the initial damage, the areas of fire exposed steel and what can be seen from the exterior of the collapse initiation. None of it is new science, we've known that unprotected steel fails in fires for over 100 years. The WTC was not unique in that.
Grumpy
WTC 1 and 2 collapsed of their own accord after being struck by jet airplanes.
there was no "planted explosives' but certain floors in both were used for storage.
i believe the butt joints in the perimeter columns are the blame.
there is also video of a core column butt joint with 1 bolt hole in the end.
the design might be sound but the actual construction was something else.
there was no "planted explosives' but certain floors in both were used for storage.
i believe the butt joints in the perimeter columns are the blame.
there is also video of a core column butt joint with 1 bolt hole in the end.
the design might be sound but the actual construction was something else.
Then it should not be that difficult to build a self supporting physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.
Experimentation is so UNscientific.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo
And it is so easy to do a computer simulation of impacting masses demonstrating that a collapse takes 12 to 14 seconds due only to the conservation of momentum. But then people do not want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete, much less the energy required to collapse a level. But I suppose it is easy for some people to BELIEVE the top down collapse of a skyscraper that stood for 28 years could happen in less than 30 seconds.
Of course if it is ever PROVEN that it could not happen then a lot of people will look pretty stupid.
psik
But you are saying rotation occurred about the center of mass so the breaks needed to occur all at once.
psik
Nope, just close to each other. Once the first element fails completely the rest follow in short order (a few hundred milliseconds.)
Then it should not be that difficult to build a self supporting physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.
Experimentation is so UNscientific.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo
And it is so easy to do a computer simulation of impacting masses demonstrating that a collapse takes 12 to 14 seconds due only to the conservation of momentum. But then people do not want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete, much less the energy required to collapse a level. But I suppose it is easy for some people to BELIEVE the top down collapse of a skyscraper that stood for 28 years could happen in less than 30 seconds.
Of course if it is ever PROVEN that it could not happen then a lot of people will look pretty stupid.
psik
We've been down this road before, but how about reversing it. From your statement above you must think that once the first level failed, the building should have stayed vertical. Explain how the supports of the next floor down is supposed to maintain magnitudes past what its maximum rating is. It was a cascading effect, once the floor reached a point where the remaining supports could not hold the weight of the failing portion, the whole thing buckled. Not even bringing numbers into play, if some of the supports buckled and the rest of them couldn't hold just that level from a zero momentum, why would the level below have the strength to stop the collapse? How would successive floors stop the continued gain in energy, when the first floor gave way from just the potential energy of the then-still floor?
Then it should not be that difficult to build a self supporting physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.
Experimentation is so UNscientific.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo
Well, that one was.
What the hell does the time WTC1 and 2 stood have to do with the time of their collapse? You're now projecting that the collapse should have taken longer? Why?
Which direction is the greatest force vector pointing? A hint, it isn't in the direction of rotation or leaning. Look at billvon's video that's been posted here before. Once enough support for a layer fails and the tower leans enough so the rest can't hold the weight, there's a main force still acting upon the blocks that is much greater than the leaning or any rotation movement. Actually, you can see many of the blocks maintain that leaning motion, so the pile is a bit to that side, but the downward motion is much greater once started.
Why?
I believe that is the principle of the conservation of stupidity. The principle states: the longer you hold on to an unsupportable belief, the harder it is to let go of that belief.
The corollary is the principle of increasing conjectures. This principle states: the more facts and data that are shown to counter your belief, the more outlandish the bizarre the conjectures become to support your belief.
psikeyhackr
Actually, Tower Two had a failure of one wall, the downward motion was asymmetrical causing a torque through the center of gravity, the torque through the center of gravity caused the top of the upper floors to go one way, the bottom the other. Beams have all of their strength in the vertical, the core beams were not designed to withstand any large forces in a horizontal direction and their connections failed. Failed connections have NO strength anymore, the building followed where gravity says it must. Once the top collapsed through 12 feet(one story)the rest of the structure can not stop it, it got worse and worse with every additional foot leading to near freefall speeds of collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
At 2:40 you can see the wall on the left buckle inward. That is the movement that brought it all down. As you can see the bottom of the top block moved sharply to the right. If you could see the top you would see it move sharply to the left(action and reaction around the center of gravity. Grade school physics). This movement severed all of the vertical connections and the top block fell straight down. It's center of gravity never moved at all, it goes straight down.
It is easy to accept things to be true once you have seen them happen with your own eyes TWICE on the same day. I saw two buildings of exactly the same construction fail when subjected to the same forces. The slight differences only effected the time it took for them to fail and the details of the collapses after failure. We now KNOW FOR A FACT that buildings of this particular type of construction are able to withstand an aircraft impact, but will not survive hours long, multi-floor, fuel fed and spread fires in addition to the damage of an aircraft impact. It's not belief, it is knowledge of reality, your incredulity notwithstanding.
Grumpy
Actually, Tower Two had a failure of one wall, the downward motion was asymmetrical causing a torque through the center of gravity, the torque through the center of gravity caused the top of the upper floors to go one way, the bottom the other. Beams have all of their strength in the vertical, the core beams were not designed to withstand any large forces in a horizontal direction and their connections failed. Failed connections have NO strength anymore, the building followed where gravity says it must. Once the top collapsed through 12 feet(one story)the rest of the structure can not stop it, it got worse and worse with every additional foot leading to near freefall speeds of collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
At 2:40 you can see the wall on the left buckle inward. That is the movement that brought it all down. As you can see the bottom of the top block moved sharply to the right. If you could see the top you would see it move sharply to the left(action and reaction around the center of gravity. Grade school physics). This movement severed all of the vertical connections and the top block fell straight down. It's center of gravity never moved at all, it goes straight down.
It is easy to accept things to be true once you have seen them happen with your own eyes TWICE on the same day. I saw two buildings of exactly the same construction fail when subjected to the same forces. The slight differences only effected the time it took for them to fail and the details of the collapses after failure. We now KNOW FOR A FACT that buildings of this particular type of construction are able to withstand an aircraft impact, but will not survive hours long, multi-floor, fuel fed and spread fires in addition to the damage of an aircraft impact. It's not belief, it is knowledge of reality, your incredulity notwithstanding.
Grumpy
the reason those buildings fell became clear to me as soon as i found out that both the core and perimeter columns contained butt joints.
a full one third of the perimeter joints were butt joints.
butt joints are one of the weakest joints known in engineering.
psiky,
how well will one of those core columns resist lateral pressure after the perimeter is removed?
how you can't see that is a mystery.
the buildings were hit.
the core, floors, and perimeter were ALL compromised at the impacted area.
the perimeter butt joints failed which removed the support for the floors.
without support from the floors the core column butt joints allowed the core to fail.
as a matter of fact it's possible that ALL buildings of this design are inherently unsafe from a catastrophic point of view.
a full one third of the perimeter joints were butt joints.
butt joints are one of the weakest joints known in engineering.
psiky,
how well will one of those core columns resist lateral pressure after the perimeter is removed?
how you can't see that is a mystery.
the buildings were hit.
the core, floors, and perimeter were ALL compromised at the impacted area.
the perimeter butt joints failed which removed the support for the floors.
without support from the floors the core column butt joints allowed the core to fail.
as a matter of fact it's possible that ALL buildings of this design are inherently unsafe from a catastrophic point of view.
I'm sure that if something similar happened to a comparable building in the future and it was used to show that this design had a fatal flaw, people like psi would say, no, no, the same conspiracy group got together and took this building down too to help cover up the WTC collapses. It's a never ending self-justification, it doesn't matter how much had to be piled on to make it work, the central viewpoint has already been decided on.
- Status