WTC Collapses

[leopold]

I think I have. Why?

then you have surely seen how some of those columns were butt jointed together. this type of joint is not exactly the strongest there is.
it doesn't take much effort on my part to question the entire construction.

in one of the links you posted the firemen were asking for a blue ribbon investigation for that very reason.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Cyperium's post 199 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Found a good excerpt that refutes the notion that the planes and fires brought down the twin towers:
*************************
The Strength of Steel Frame Structures

For those who want us to imagine that the Towers "collapsed", the assumption that they "fell" on their own is a critical part of the story. But to anyone who is familiar with the performance of modern steel-frame structures, it should be obvious that they cannot simply collapse on their own, with or without an office fire, or even from the impact of a falling portion of the same building. If impacted from above, the Towers might bend or distort, but they wouldn't explode, disintegrate in mid-air, or collapse like a house of cards!

Anyone who's ever played with an Erector Set knows that as long as the structural members remain well-connected, a framework may become twisted and distorted if it falls to the floor, but it will never just collapse into pieces under any scenario involving self-related and self-proportional forces. Buildings that have fallen in earthquakes demonstrate this resistance to disintegration.


*************************
http://www.truememes.com/semantics.html

For a more detailed analysis of why collapses had to have been demolitions, feel free to visit my web page on the subject:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/

Those buildings weren't that massive compared to the twin towers. Something the size of the twin towers can't tip, it will only collapse upon itself, think about it, if it started tipping at any place of the building it would not be able to maintain structure.

Actually, the top of one of them -did- tip but then disintegrated in mid air.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by leopold99

speaking of evidence,
have you seen any pictures of the steel core columns as they were being removed from ground zero?

I think I have. Why?

then you have surely seen how some of those columns were butt jointed together. this type of joint is not exactly the strongest there is. it doesn't take much effort on my part to question the entire construction.

in one of the links you posted the firemen were asking for a blue ribbon investigation for that very reason.

I believe you're referring to this page:
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

In any case, while Manning is definitely right that the official 9/11 investigation was a half baked farce, they're mistaken on the cause of the collapses. 9/11 Research, in its article 7 Wrold Trade Center- Mysterious Levelling of Building 7, puts it this way:
*************************
WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.
*************************

I suspect that the case is much the same in the case of the twin towers.

 

[leopold]

. . . , they're mistaken on the cause of the collapses..

even though videos that exhibit the characteristics of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse cannot be found?
even though there is photographic evidence of butt joints (one of the weakest joints known) being used in the steel core columns?
they are mistaken????

 

[alaska1976]

I use to braze steel and aluminum. Aluminum has a pale yellow color when first melted. Then it cools to a hard silvery mass. I know this because we use to melt it into forms for fun. On the south tower where the rivers of molten metal are running out is the area where a large chunk of jet stopped. you will see molten streams of that high yellow color and of an orange yellow color which is the color of melting steel. Mix the two together and you have a yellowish orange flow.

 

[shaman_]

This is in response to the second part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.

Indeed. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't hold anyone legally responsible for the collapse. An... interesting conclusion. .

You are being obtuse. If those that built the towers were found to be negligent in their duties then potentially the families could try legal action against them.

There are people who have been held responsible for the collapse and there is a long trail of evidence which points to Al Queda members.

In any case, there would be even -more- implications if it were found that the buildings couldn't have fallen down at all without the help of explosives.

Even though many steel structures have collapsed from fire alone……

In a way, perhaps it was fortunate for Astaneh that he quit when he did; he may have found out so much that even he would have found it hard to deny that the WTC collapses were the result of controlled demolition.

More silly speculation .. He investigated the steel and made his conclusions that no explosives were involved.

That, in turn, may have meant that he would have been suspended from his university, and seriously, who wants to lose their job? Perhaps this is why he never responded to me when I asked him about the vaporized steel. If he can just stay -quiet- enough about it all, perhaps he can continue his work as a professor.

You don't have any insight as to what the professor is thinking. He has made his position clear though and you should accept it and move on.

This is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.



Actually, it does...




Yep...

The difference is insignificant. .

Of course it is significant!

Your theory lacks evidence, sorry.

Okay so explain to me what part of “When the collapse started the first floor was pounded. With each floor the collapse gained momentum and the force increased, crushing each as it went” is wrong and why.

Even NIST's hopelessly flawed computer simulation stops short of simulating the actual collapse. Perhaps NIST figured it was better to be thought a fool then to attempt to simulate the collapse due to fire alone and remove all doubt.

I think you are referring to pancaking being the cause of the collapse. I am not specifically talking about that I am talking about the collision of the floors on the ones below.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Watch a video of the collapse.

You can, ofcourse, continue to claim 'amazing' amounts of force did all kinds of things. However, if you really want to get into the math of it all, you may want to take a look at this page:
The Number ONE Smoking Gun of 9/11

No that something of a dodge. You can't refute defend your stance so you post links. I'm not interested in spending a lot of time trying to analyze the mess that is truther physics.

Well, atleast you're here debating with me; it seems many architects and engineers have come to the conclusion that the WTC collapses warrant further investigation. While we may not have the power to do the type of investigation that the government can do, we can do a little online sleuthing to attempt to make the truth clearer for everyone.

You avoided the point again. Your expert was claiming that the building wasn’t moving fast so there isn’t much force involved.

As to your architects and engineers, I have shown you that those numbers have been filled out with irrelevant professions. Check the site.

If they really are qualified then they should be able to do their own investigation and flood the engineering journals with peer reviewed papers. Strangely this doesn’t seem to be happening. Hrm.

What I have heard time and again is that those factors simply weren't enough.

You have heard that from people who are after a modern religion, not the truth.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, it may be that the blasts were of a quieter nature; either that or it's simply that the camera was further away. In any case, as I've mentioned before, some people who were fairly close to the scene definitely did hear blasts.

No you are still being obtuse. Explosives don’t just magically turn concrete to dust unless they blast it. Where are the blasts? Where are the waves of force? There aren’t any. The dust is seen as the floors pound on each other.

Don’t even think about trying to bring up your usual distortions of witness testimony.

This is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.



To be sure. But I'm not alone in not liking the investigation. Take Jonathan Barnett's statement regarding WTC 7, for instance:
"We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7"

Here's the video where he says it:
http://www.truveo.com/Jonathan-Barnett-forensic-engineer-for-WTC7/id/468939016#

The investigation was probably far from perfect. However this doesn’t imply that bombs were involved. Barnett’s team did not find any evidence for explosives or any evidence for ridiculously high temperatures. Maybe you can read through their report and search for the word tentative.

Personally, I believe I simply go where the evidence leads. Can you say the same?

Ok, I’ll admit that was pretty funny.

Oh you weren’t joking.

Scott you seem too ready to believe everything 911research says. If you were actually interested in evidence you would read the rebuttals or visit the debunking sites to get both sides. I have actually read both sides of the story. Can you say the same? You just want to maintain the 911 religion and spread the word.

 

[shaman_]

This is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 125 in this thread.



I assure you that I'm not reading via braille . I read, but I don't just read. I analyze the reading for logical consistency and if it passes muster,

After your proclamation that the evidence points to a missile hitting the pentagon or your theorizing that nuclear devices may have been involved in 9/11 I don’t have much confidence in your analysis.

I present what I've read in this forum. At times, after some criticisms here and further analysis on my part, I may come to the conclusion that a particular theory is mistaken or deserves more study before proposing it as what you might call my 'main' ideas. That is, the ideas that I feel most confident about. This doesn't mean that my ideas can no longer be challenged. It's clear that they are still challenged. Nevertheless, the fact that this dicussion has continued for years and, in sciforums' case, for thousands of posts, may make you consider the possibility that perhaps there really -is- something to these alternate theories regarding 9/11.

The ‘something’ is a human fascination with conspiracy theories. People want to believe in them just as people want to believe in ESP, religion and alien visitation. The evidence isn’t there but that doesn’t stop people believing in it.

Honestly, if I wanted to preach, I would do so in a 9/11 alternate story web site,

You don’t want to preach to the converted, you want to proselytize.

Well, you might not like this 'conspiracy site', but I think it's not so bad myself

You don’t get your information from here. You bring information here to defend your story.

I see no evidence that what is being poured is aluminum. The book is about building an oil fired furnace. The metal in the picture could easily be iron.

Apparently it is. I swore I saw aluminum on the page when I read it. I have posted other pics of aluminum being pored and will find them when I respond to Headspin

I can agree with that; If FEMA's report is to be believed, the fires should never have even reached the temperature to melt aluminum. Apparently, however, NIST managed to get the numbers higher, using some highly questionable methods.

You are again being intellectually dishonest but I am used to you playing dumb. There is ample evidence that the office fires went well over 250C and none of it is questionable. You just ignore the evidence you don't like and pretend you never saw it.

Not really. Try this out- take a piece of orange paper. Cut it bigger and smaller pieces, then put them against a grey background. I have found that smaller pieces tend to look more grey then the bigger ones; the eye essentially averages the colors in a given area. It may also be that the smaller bits cooled a bit more then the larger flow.

I will see if I can find a better photo.

But people may forget that the metal didn't just drop and then dissapear. Apparently a video was made of the metal -on the ground-. Here's a frame from the video:

And here is the video where the frame was taken, from 5:04 to 5:23:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0

I’m still not sure about that one. When I looked at the video I thought it was sunshine on orange dust. I asked someone else and they said the same. Due to all the dust around the video is probably after one or both of the collapses and that probably isn’t WTC1 or 2. If that is molten material, why would the truck just drive over it? No there are some problems with that claim.

What more would you have him do?

A better test than that before declaring the matter solved.

And surely you realize that official story supporters didn't do anything more? And that the results they got from the only test I know of were just as bad for the official story?

You are referring to the test when they poured a little of the aluminum off the top and declared it didn’t mix. That also doesn't simulate the river of molten material flowing out of WTC.

Perhaps -that's- why they didn't do any more testing on the matter?

It is not an easy test to simulate.

The most likely explanation is that it was molten iron.

This is where you are making an enormous leap of faith. You see molten material so it must be iron. All the accumulated evidence points to temperatures near 1000C. There has yet to be any evidence of molten steel/iron. There have been many claims but none appear to be reliable.

Steven Jones' logic, is, in my view, unnassailable on this count.

I know.

Well, I'm glad you are atleast considering that it had some iron in it.

Yes but not caused by temperatures of 1500C+.

In the building itself I would imagine. The real issue, in my view, is the whole issue of thermate signatures and unexploded thermate. Seriously, I don't understand why you can't contemplate the possibility that thermate is what brought down the buildings.

Because the evidence that the structural damage and the fires could do it is overwhelming. Several steel structures have collapsed due to fire alone and they did not need bombs, megathermite, jet fuel or 757s colliding with them. The fact that WTC buildings were taller than these other examples is irrelevant. In fact you could say that the taller buildings are more prone to collapse. Either way it is clear that these buildings did not need help to come down.

Then there is the problem of the evidence for ultrasupermegathermite. All you have is Jones’ who has already made stupid, incorrect or dishonest claims so far. Now he is claiming that there is a chemical signature of an incendiary, but he is not taking into account that the materials in the building could be responsible, nor is he able to prove that the signature wasn’t caused by the clean up or even the construction. When you look at his body of 9/11 work it is clear that he is not applying a strict methodology to his work and is led by belief not evidence.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It was a steel framed multi storey floating casino that was washed inland by hurricane katrina.

You don't suppose the word "floating" tells you more about that thing than the "steel framed" does, do you?

psik

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Indeed. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't hold anyone legally responsible for the collapse. An... interesting conclusion.

.

You are being obtuse. If those that built the towers were found to be negligent in their duties then potentially the families could try legal action against them.

And that shouldn't be allowed?

There are people who have been held responsible for the collapse and there is a long trail of evidence which points to Al Queda members.

Actually, there's such a lack of evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind it that the FBI never put it on his list of crimes.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

In any case, there would be even -more- implications if it were found that the buildings couldn't have fallen down at all without the help of explosives.

Even though many steel structures have collapsed from fire alone……

I've already dealt with that argument here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2094359&postcount=78

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

In a way, perhaps it was fortunate for Astaneh that he quit when he did; he may have found out so much that even he would have found it hard to deny that the WTC collapses were the result of controlled demolition.

More silly speculation .. He investigated the steel and made his conclusions that no explosives were involved.

He tentatively concluded that the fires were 'most likely' due to fire, then "resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete." Not very promising. But hey, atleast people in high places aren't getting sued. This seems to be of paramount concern to you...

Originally Posted by scott3x

That, in turn, may have meant that he would have been suspended from his university, and seriously, who wants to lose their job? Perhaps this is why he never responded to me when I asked him about the vaporized steel. If he can just stay -quiet- enough about it all, perhaps he can continue his work as a professor.

You don't have any insight as to what the professor is thinking.

How would you know? You talk to him recently? I feel that my reasoning on his thought process may be valid. I've emailed him in an attempt to ascertain his viewpoint with more certainty, but as I've mentioned, I received no response.

He has made his position clear though and you should accept it and move on.

He has certainly stated that he doesn't believe in alternative conspiracy theories. However, he has also apparently mentioned things like vaporized steel. This is a logical conjecture based on the New York Times article I have mentioned previously. It would be swell if he would make a statement as to whether or not he told the reporter that steel had vaporized, but for whatever reason, despite being asked to clarify his position by me and perhaps others, he hasn't.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

The towers may have been near free fall speed but they weren’t at free fall speed.

The difference is insignificant.

Of course it is significant!

According to who? You and GeoffP?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Your theory lacks evidence, sorry.

Okay so explain to me what part of “When the collapse started the first floor was pounded. With each floor the collapse gained momentum and the force increased, crushing each as it went” is wrong and why.

It should be -you- trying to prove that this in fact occured. The official story isn't innocent until proven guilty. If they're going to try to pin the blame on some Al Qaeda operative, they've got to -prove- their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. So prove to me that 'when the collapse started the first floor was pounded' (by pounded I assume you mean collapsed) and that the building pancaked all the way down.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Even NIST's hopelessly flawed computer simulation stops short of simulating the actual collapse. Perhaps NIST figured it was better to be thought a fool then to attempt to simulate the collapse due to fire alone and remove all doubt.

I think you are referring to pancaking being the cause of the collapse. I am not specifically talking about that I am talking about the collision of the floors on the ones below.

Despite the collapse being symetrical, most of the debris didn't actually go straight down in the case of the twin towers; rather, it exploded outwards. The arguments that NIST has used in order to justify its hopelessly flawed conclusion that the floors pancaked themselves are lame and Steven Jones has made that clear.

 

[shaman_]

I've already dealt with that argument here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2094359&postcount=78

I responded to that post at the time.

Perhaps you could summarize how you think you have "dealt with the argument".

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

The claim that dust is shooting out the sides of the building at the very start of the collapse is a ridiculous exaggeration.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Watch a video of the collapse.

I took a look at this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYUx5zJ3yss&feature=related

I must admit that it doesn't -really- start exploding outwards until it's a little bit in. Perhaps they were extra careful with the explosives at the initial point before going whole hog (as has been mentioned, it's much easier to bring a building down with an over abundance of explosives then just the right amount).

 

[shaman_]

He tentatively concluded that the fires were 'most likely' due to fire,

You are still completely misrepresenting what he said. I am getting sick of it Scott.

The word ‘tentative’ was used when giving a detailed explanation of the cause of the collapse. It was not used when describing if the fires were responsible.

He said

"I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says. "Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down”

How clear does it need to be?

then "resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete."

” Mr. Astaneh-Asl's says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom”

Not very promising. But hey, atleast people in high places aren't getting sued. This seems to be of paramount concern to you...

I don’t give a damn who gets sued.

How old are you Scott?

How would you know? You talk to him recently?

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that you know what he is thinking. Is that what you are saying?

I feel that my reasoning on his thought process may be valid. I've emailed him in an attempt to ascertain his viewpoint with more certainty, but as I've mentioned, I received no response.

He probably thinks you are an annoying crackpot.

He has certainly stated that he doesn't believe in alternative conspiracy theories. However, he has also apparently mentioned things like vaporized steel.

He was not quoted saying that and you know it. Stop being dishonest.

This is a logical conjecture based on the New York Times article I have mentioned previously. It would be swell if he would make a statement as to whether or not he told the reporter that steel had vaporized,

It wouldn't matter what he said. If he said it didn't vaporize you wouldn't believe him.

but for whatever reason, despite being asked to clarify his position by me and perhaps others, he hasn't.

He has clarified his position!

 

[shaman_]

According to who? You and GeoffP?

Sigh.
Is that your attempt at being clever? You should probably stick to being the cheerleader for headspin and psikeyhackr Scott.

It did not fall at free fall. It may have been close to free fall but it didn't fall at free fall. I can't even be bothered explaining to you why that is important.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I've already dealt with that argument here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2094359&postcount=78

I responded to that post at the time.

I have seen no response to that post. I find it interesting that you haven't cited your response.

Perhaps you could summarize how you think you have "dealt with the argument".

My post was really rather short. But since you seem to be too lazy to click on the link, here are the pertinent points:
1- A steel framed high rise is a steel structure, but it is a -subset- of the possible steel structures, one that is much more robust then a steel warehouse, as 9/11 Research made clear. A steel framed -high rise- has never collapsed due to jet initiated fires and the towers were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner anywhere in the building.

2- It's extremely unlikely that -any- steel framed high rise would completely collapse due to fire, plane initiated or not. On 9/11, 3 steel framed high rises completely collapsed. The government would like us to believe that fires did the trick every time, but many don't buy it.

Here's a more honest computer simulation of the twin towers' core:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ&feature=related

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

According to who? You and GeoffP?

Sigh.
Is that your attempt at being clever? You should probably stick to being the cheerleader for headspin and psikeyhackr Scott.

It did not fall at free fall. It may have been close to free fall but it didn't fall at free fall. I can't even be bothered explaining to you why that is important.

How convenient. That way you can simply ignore my argument that the difference is irrelevant.

 

[Headspin]

You don't suppose the word "floating" tells you more about that thing than the "steel framed" does, do you?

I could have described it as a "barge", but before you know it, one of the conflabulators around here would have redefined it as a "canoe". I'm sure you know how it works.