WTC Collapses

[shaman_]

Agreed. I believe it was mainly iron; iron can definitely burn bright yellow in daylight conditions.

It can but so can other things.

We can agree that the structural damage alone from the planes didn't bring down the planes atleast. Even some who support the official theory believe that the damage the planes did to the building structure of the towers was minimal. However, NIST believes that the only other factor were the fires; this has been debunked time and again.

Only in the minds of the poorly informed and the gullible.

If you want, I can post some of their flawed reasoning from one of Steven Jones' papers again.

I’m sure I’ve responded to it five times but sure go ahead.

I'm thinking of making a page detailing NIST's immensely flawed conclusions so I can reference it every time someone brings up NIST's conclusions.

You will no doubt ignore any criticism of this reference page.

The orange molten metal, and the rising plume of white smoke emanating from the same point, match thermite like a hand in a glove.

Or a foot pushed very hard into a glove.

NIST attempted to explain the orange spout as molten aluminum with mixed in hydrocarbons, a hypothesis conclusively disproved by Professor Steven Jones.

Is this the experiment where they put some wood and plastic chips into a little pot and considered that a recreation of what was happening inside the skyscraper while it burned away? That’s ridiculous. I don’t know if it was organic material, copper, iron slag from a eutectic reaction or what but that experiment was not an appropriate recreation of what was happening in the towers. It doesn't take into account the other materials and chemicals in the tower. Tipping a little aluminium out of the top of a little pot isn't the same as the river of molten material we see coming out of the corner of WTC.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Perhaps I should have said something before. I just hoped that it would work itself out, but not talking to each other is not what I had in mind. Here's to hoping I can get some clarification from one or both of you:
Is this whole argument over what constituted the molten metal falling out of the 81st floor from the south tower? If so, perhaps this excerpt from 9/11 Research's 911 Mysteries AND Facts article:
The orange molten metal, and the rising plume of white smoke emanating from the same point, match thermite like a hand in a glove. NIST attempted to explain the orange spout as molten aluminum with mixed in hydrocarbons, a hypothesis conclusively disproved by Professor Steven Jones.

Scott, what you say here is along the lines of what I said earlier and this guy Un Hoo accused me of verbal tricks and being intellectually dishonest. As far as I am concerned he is the one who is being cagey and incredibly has the audacity to accuse somebody else of it. I have nothing more to say to this guy Un Hoo.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Is this the experiment where they put some wood and plastic chips into a little pot and considered that a recreation of what was happening inside the skyscraper while it burned away? That’s ridiculous. I don’t know if it was organic material, copper, iron slag from a eutectic reaction or what but that experiment was not an appropriate recreation of what was happening in the towers. It doesn't take into account the other materials and chemicals in the tower. Tipping a little aluminium out of the top of a little pot isn't the same as the river of molten material we see coming out of the corner of WTC.

I dont understand isnt this what you wanted? Science to recreate the effect using controlled conditions for a clearer understanding of what happened?

And this is how you treat it? Wow...

The best part is (as I have bolded above) you say you dont know what it could be, but you KNOW its not what the experiment showed! :shrug:
Sounds a bit like a fundie christian to me...

It seems even evidence obtained through experiment is not enough and can be brushed aside as quickly as unsubstantiated claims pertaining all things 9/11.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Is this the experiment where they put some wood and plastic chips into a little pot and considered that a recreation of what was happening inside the skyscraper while it burned away? That’s ridiculous. I don’t know if it was organic material, copper, iron slag from a eutectic reaction or what but that experiment was not an appropriate recreation of what was happening in the towers. It doesn't take into account the other materials and chemicals in the tower. Tipping a little aluminium out of the top of a little pot isn't the same as the river of molten material we see coming out of the corner of WTC.

Can you get a little more detailed as to what type of experiment you think would prove that the molten metal flow coming out of WTC 2 wasn't Aluminum, or how it could have been with mitigating factors?

Steven Jones did more than the NIST did. All they did was speculate and his experiment proved their speculation wrong.

 

[shaman_]

I dont understand isnt this what you wanted? Science to recreate the effect using controlled conditions for a clearer understanding of what happened?

And this is how you treat it? Wow...

I think his experiment was a poor one. Do you understand?

The best part is (as I have bolded above) you say you dont know what it could be, but you KNOW its not what the experiment showed! :shrug:

Why don’t you point out where I said that.

Sounds a bit like a fundie christian to me...

You are the one trying to distort other people’s words….

It seems even evidence obtained through experiment is not enough and can be brushed aside as quickly as unsubstantiated claims pertaining all things 9/11.

His experiment is not above criticism....

 

[Uno Hoo]

For the whole floor or just the side of the impact? From what I've heard, the plane struck on the opposite side of where there molten metal was coming out. I still don't believe that the fires could have produced the molten metal, just not so sure the floor had to be tilted downwards on the side it came out. Ofcourse if it -was- then it might explain why it only came out on that side; apparently white smoke was seen coming out of the other 3 corners as well, which is indicative of a thermitic reaction.

It is my opinion that the floor trusses and concrete slab on the side of the building ( speaking in terms of the core area being a central divider) would almost certainly have been tilted severely away from being flat due to the drastic relocation movement imparted to the perimeter columns and thence directly imparted to the floor assembly.

Also, the floor assembly had to have suffered the impact of the jetliner falling upon it.

Consider this: at one moment the jetliner was supporting itself in the air by means of aerodynamic lift. At the microsecond moment of impact, its speed dropped greatly because of impact with the massive interlocked steel design of the perimeter columns/spandrels. The impact instantly severely relocated the columns/spandrels, thereby severely relocating the directly connected floor assembly. Upon violating the wall, the jetliner lost quite a bit of momentum ( absorbed into the massive interlocked column/spandrel assembly). Instantly it no longer had enough aerodynamic lift and fell out of the air. At this moment, I do not remember the weight of the jetliner and am not going to stop to look it up, but it was something like 100 tons. 100 tons fell out of the air and impacted upon the floor assembly. Precise calculations are best, but at this moment i will say a rule of thumb: structural designers estimate a moving impact to be twice the stationary weight. So, we have an extra 200 tons instantly bearing upon a floor structure designed for somewhat less. The floor assembly most assuredly would have bent down under such a burden. When the remnants of the jetliner reached the far wall and attempted egress, once again, momentum would have been provided to the perimeter column/spandrel assembly. Columns/spandrels would be severely thusly relocated and would have again caused the severe relocation of the directly connected floor trusses/floor assembly. Thereby causing more sever aberration of the floor assembly away from flat,or, level.

It is therefore likely that the floor under the point of impact would have obtained a definite tilt down from the point of impact, becoming lowest at the point of egress of whatever jetliner debris exited the building. In a manner of speaking, the jetliner began plowing a ditch in the floor assembly and the ditch got deeper as the jetliner (remnants) moved from the entry wall to the exit wall.

It is also conceivable that the floor could have obtained a tilt down at the point of impact, then actually rising to normal elevation some distance inside the building( to the location where the jetliner settled upon the floor), thence from that point tilting again down to the point of egress. So it would not be farfetched to have a spilling-out-point both at the point of entry, and, at the point of egress.

Regardless of exactly which way the floor tilted after the moment of impact, it is a virtual mathematical certainty that the floor got tilted, and probably severely tilted.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Uno Hoo seems to be very intelligent.

Thank you very much. So I've got you conned, too.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Agreed. I believe it was mainly iron; iron can definitely burn bright yellow in daylight conditions.




We can agree that the structural damage alone from the planes didn't bring down the planes atleast. Even some who support the official theory believe that the damage the planes did to the building structure of the towers was minimal. However, NIST believes that the only other factor were the fires; this has been debunked time and again. If you want, I can post some of their flawed reasoning from one of Steven Jones' papers again. I'm thinking of making a page detailing NIST's immensely flawed conclusions so I can reference it every time someone brings up NIST's conclusions.

Duh. Since the towers did not fall the next minute after the collisions, scott is obviously, to the millionth power, correct that the collisions alone did not bring them down. I mean this as a compliment, scott.

While I still have an open mind about it, I am finding it harder and harder to give a regular fire the credit for bringing them down after the impacts.

 

[Uno Hoo]

those perimeter columns weren't exactly chumps you know.
those plane sliced right through them like they were made of hot butter.
to say those planes caused minimal damage is a stretch.

Cheez. You are perfectly right. Maybe.

The Achilles Heel that the building structure might have had is the connection between column/spandrel modules with each other. On all but the lowest floors, the connection was a 4-bolt connection. If the bolts were big enough, the impact of a jetliner would have not sheared the bolts and therefore would have not permitted drastic relocation of the column/spandrel modules. The jetliner would conceivably poofed into Aluminum confetti like the now legendary F4 Phantom in the now legendary video.

If the bolts were originally specified big enough, and if specified bolts were actually used, the building could conceivably have shrugged off a jetliner impact like your favorite Roller shrugs off a bug splat on its windscreen when you are driving to the pub.

If the bolts were originally too small, then the jetliner impact would have sheared them, allowing drastic relocation of the columns, etc.

If the bolts were originally big enough, but were surreptitiously replaced with lesser bolts by scoundrels, then jetliner impact could have splatted the columns rather than splatting the jetliner.

The column/spandrel modules were manufactured with access cutouts in the component steel plates for the very reason of giving ironworkers a hole to reach into the modules and bolt them together during erection. At a latter day, all a scoundrel had to do was to punch a hole in a drywall office wall, reach in, and take out the original big bolt and put in a little bolt. Then a dastardly jetliner impact could throw the previously fabulously strong building into a tizzy.

This would have provided a great cover story. Everybody could see on tv how the jetliner knocked out all those columns and left gaping holes. The only thing left is for the scoundrels to figure out how to actually topple the building, even while the terrible looking gaping gaping holes on tv looked bad enough (but really were not). You see, if the bolts connecting the columns together were too small, it would have no effect on the vertical stability of the building. The scoundrels still had to do something to topple them. I have not done calculations, but i feel that it would have been very unlikely that sagging floor joists could have exerted enough inward pull against the perimeter columns to have disrupted them, even if the bolts were small. A professional structural designer learns just how really strong steel bolts are in shear. At this moment I feel that it is highly unlikely that sagging floor joists could have exerted enough pull upon the columns to have sheared the connection bolts between column modules, unless they were absurdly small, or, perhaps, missing. The only way that the floor assembly could have fallen is to have pulled the columns inward strongly enough to shear the column module connection bolts, or to have sheared the bolts connecting the steel bar joists to the columns. The bolts connecting steel bar joists to their support are almost always absurdly overdesigned. They are almost always far too strong versus what they need to be, in shear. Because they most always need only a certain degree of shear strength, but even a small standard bolt has much more than the amount calculated to be needed. It is somewhat unlikely that the bolts connecting the steel bar joists to the columns failed in shear.

Though i am still maintaining a neutral stance, it is becoming more difficult by the day for me to believe that the non-conspiracy view is a slam dunk.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Un Hoo, read my lips. You will never get a response from me again. You are ridiculous and not worth my time. I don't need to be called intellectually dishonest by you or anyone else. You had no basis for that and you have said it several times. Jump in a lake pal. Who needs your shit?

There is a remarkably simple remedy for you.

It is: If you do not want to be called intellectually dishonest, then: don't be intellectually dishonest.

Anybody who accurately quotes my good, bad, and ugly statements and contests them or corrects me is OK. I am embarrassed at being wrong, but I have had more than enough practice to handle it.

Anybody who persistently misquotes my statements is eligible to be called intellectually dishonest.

That's you, babes.

Quote me correctly, and we can argue about anything. A-OK.

I am not going to come to a forum and waste a lot of my time just correcting misquotes that somebody makes. I have important things to spend my time on.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Perhaps I should have said something before. I just hoped that it would work itself out, but not talking to each other is not what I had in mind. Here's to hoping I can get some clarification from one or both of you:
Is this whole argument over what constituted the molten metal falling out of the 81st floor from the south tower? If so, perhaps this excerpt from 9/11 Research's 911 Mysteries AND Facts article:
The orange molten metal, and the rising plume of white smoke emanating from the same point, match thermite like a hand in a glove. NIST attempted to explain the orange spout as molten aluminum with mixed in hydrocarbons, a hypothesis conclusively disproved by Professor Steven Jones.

My only problem with Tony is that Tony has persistently misquoted me. I am not going to waste my time just correcting somebody about their wrong quotes of me.

After a certain large number of misquotes, it begins to be suspicious that the misquoter may be doing it on purpose. I have become suspicious.

 

[scott3x]

Perhaps I should have said something before. I just hoped that it would work itself out, but not talking to each other is not what I had in mind. Here's to hoping I can get some clarification from one or both of you:
Is this whole argument over what constituted the molten metal falling out of the 81st floor from the south tower? If so, perhaps this excerpt from 9/11 Research's 911 Mysteries AND Facts article:
The orange molten metal, and the rising plume of white smoke emanating from the same point, match thermite like a hand in a glove. NIST attempted to explain the orange spout as molten aluminum with mixed in hydrocarbons, a hypothesis conclusively disproved by Professor Steven Jones.

My only problem with Tony is that Tony has persistently misquoted me.

Could you give me an example of one of his misquotes?

I am not going to waste my time just correcting somebody about their wrong quotes of me.

After a certain large number of misquotes, it begins to be suspicious that the misquoter may be doing it on purpose. I have become suspicious.

So you suspect him of dishonesty, but you're not sure. But in the past you flat out stated that he was intellectually dishonest, which is decidedly different.

 

[scott3x]

Perhaps I should have said something before. I just hoped that it would work itself out, but not talking to each other is not what I had in mind. Here's to hoping I can get some clarification from one or both of you:
Is this whole argument over what constituted the molten metal falling out of the 81st floor from the south tower? If so, perhaps this excerpt from 9/11 Research's 911 Mysteries AND Facts article:
The orange molten metal, and the rising plume of white smoke emanating from the same point, match thermite like a hand in a glove. NIST attempted to explain the orange spout as molten aluminum with mixed in hydrocarbons, a hypothesis conclusively disproved by Professor Steven Jones.

Scott, what you say here is along the lines of what I said earlier and this guy Un Hoo accused me of verbal tricks and being intellectually dishonest. As far as I am concerned he is the one who is being cagey and incredibly has the audacity to accuse somebody else of it. I have nothing more to say to this guy Uno Hoo.

I'm rather sorry to hear that. I agree with you that you were never intellectually dishonest; In Uno Hoo's last post addressed to me, he seems to have changed tack and now claims that he only suspects you of being intellectually dishonest and that you've frequently misquoted him. So I've pointed out the difference between suspecting and knowing and asked him to give me an example of him being misquoted by you. Hopefully some better understanding will come of this and a rapprochement can happen between the 2 of you in the not too distant future.

I think it's fair to say that Uno Hoo is the most visible fence sitter in this thread. I'm sure Uno Hoo has his flaws, but I certainly think that he's much more receptive to considering arguments concerning the inside job theories than many others here, which is why I, atleast, would like to keep on trying to persuade him.

 

[scott3x]

If you want, I can post some of their flawed reasoning from one of Steven Jones' papers again.

I’m sure I’ve responded to it five times but sure go ahead.

Actually you bring up a good point; you're not the only person who's tired of rehashing the same stuff over and over again. I'd like to think that there's been some improvement over the course of the thousands of posts dedicated to this topic, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps it would have been better if I'd stuck to my web site detailing the various arguments. In essence, just as I see no point in putting what someone else has said quite well in my 'own words', I also think that while adding to my web site may seem needlessly time consuming at first, it seems that in the long run it might actually save some time. So I think I'll start working on that again soon. Anyway, I've gotten a bit tired of quoting Steven Jones' criticisms of NIST's report, so I'll just mention that it's the 12th reason that he believes that the government-sponsored reports should be challenged in his peer reviewed paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?, and can be found from pages 36-39.

 

[Headspin]

My only problem with Tony is that Tony has persistently misquoted me. I am not going to waste my time just correcting somebody about their wrong quotes of me.

After a certain large number of misquotes, it begins to be suspicious that the misquoter may be doing it on purpose. I have become suspicious.

I don't see where Tony misquoted you :shrug:

You suggested the glowing molten material pouring out of the tower was copper.
Tony presented a logical case against it being copper. If Tony had not posted his rebuttal, i'd have posted something very similar.
Calling him intellectually dishonest is as good as calling him a liar and that doesn't fit. Having re-read his responses to you on the last few pages, I think I'd be upset with you too. maybe this is a misunderstanding? perhaps a good time to review what was posted, and correct any misunderstanding?

 

[Uno Hoo]

This Tony flap is beyond absurdity. I genuinely do not care if somebody misunderstands me to the point of responding to me inanely. Such has happened before and predictably will happen again, and I truly do not care.

I had understood several Tony posts directed to me as being misquotes of my prior posts. I had already developed an appreciation of his contributions to this thread but was dismayed at what I understood to be misquotes, which often is an indicator of one poster trying to make sport at a victim's expense.

It is admittedly possible that both Tony and myself were somehow misunderstanding each other's statements. If Tony sincerely says that he was not actually trying to misquote me in sport, then I am willing to bury the hatchet and again try to conduct respectful and civil dialog between us. Does Tony say this?

But is essentially of no importance to me, in my new found interest into the WTC affair, whether any other poster in this forum offends me, or, whether I offend any other poster in this forum. I am not posting here to try to win Miss Congeniality award. Understand?

 

[leopold]

The column/spandrel modules were manufactured with access cutouts in the component steel plates for the very reason of giving ironworkers a hole to reach into the modules and bolt them together during erection. At a latter day, all a scoundrel had to do was to punch a hole in a drywall office wall, reach in, and take out the original big bolt and put in a little bolt. Then a dastardly jetliner impact could throw the previously fabulously strong building into a tizzy.

interesting hypothesis . . . except for one thing.
the outside of the towers was clad in aluminum sheathing.
these bolts could not be simply replaced without removing the sheathing on the outside of the building.
if the bolts do indeed prove to be inferior then they had to have been placed there when the building was erected.

The scoundrels still had to do something to topple them. I have not done calculations, but i feel that it would have been very unlikely that sagging floor joists could have exerted enough inward pull against the perimeter columns to have disrupted them, even if the bolts were small.

in the videos of the collapse you can indeed see the perimeter columns folding inwards.

 

[leopold]

I don't see where Tony misquoted you :shrug:

uno hoo has accused me of the same thing.

uno hoo,
there is a difference between a misquote and a misunderstanding.

 

[Headspin]

The column/spandrel modules were manufactured with access cutouts in the component steel plates for the very reason of giving ironworkers a hole to reach into the modules and bolt them together during erection. At a latter day, all a scoundrel had to do was to punch a hole in a drywall office wall, reach in, and take out the original big bolt and put in a little bolt. Then a dastardly jetliner impact could throw the previously fabulously strong building into a tizzy.

interesting hypothesis . . . except for one thing.
the outside of the towers was clad in aluminum sheathing.
these bolts could not be simply replaced without removing the sheathing on the outside of the building.
if the bolts do indeed prove to be inferior then they had to have been placed there when the building was erected.

Replacing 30 year old rust-fused and stressed bolts would seem to be extremely unlikely and unnecessary to achieve weakened connections when it would be simpler to just place an explosive or corrosive device inside the column to do the same task, however to correct you on a detail, the aluminum covers were on the outside of the building, the column access holes were on the inside of the building, so the aluminum covers would not obstruct access to the column holes. If planning a demolition, you could get access to the connections, I'm not sure what internal column covering there was but it would have been lightweight and I suspect easily removed, but you would have to have access to the complete floor, easily achieved by simply renting the entire floor space of the floors you wish to work on. None of this of course assumes it was necessary to attack the perimeter columns in order to achieve a collapse.

 

[leopold]

. . . however to correct you on a detail, the aluminum covers were on the outside of the building, the column access holes were on the inside of the building, so the aluminum covers would not obstruct access to the column holes.

true, but the sheathing would prevent removal of the bolt.

this is a great photograph headspin for it shows just how meager the connections were between the floor and the perimeter columns.