WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
Reported. That's the 3rd report I've made now. If this doesn't get a response, well, I guess the whole reporting thing is a sham in this forum. Either you're Stryder, in which case you can boot any (non admin) you like, or you're not, in which case you just take the lumps.
This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 393 from this thread.
The Structure of the World Trade Center, Round 1
I agree. So does 911review.org, even including a diagram of this belief and stating that it is mistaken. It states the reverse; that the core columns reinforced the concrete core.
To be sure. You are aware that the 9/11 research article in question was referring to the frames of the buildings, not the cores, right? And that a steel frame is much stronger and more resistant to fire than a (lightly) steel reinforced frame?
Ok, the 911review.org article in question is stating that the inner core, which bore 20% of the load, was surrounded by the interior steel core columns, which bore 30% of the load. The remaining 50% of the load was borne by the perimeter columns. If you disagree with any of this, then I can certainly attempt to seek more confirmation as at present, the only source I have for those precise distributions is the above linked article from 911review.org (not to be confused with 911review.com, an official story supporter).
9/11 Research elaborates:
******************
"The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick... In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4 The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building."
******************
Only the Windsor Tower's relatively weak perimeter collapsed; the core remained intact.
Can you quote the part where it discusses the mistake(s?) NIST made? Don't want to have to read through the whole thing
.
Yes. Apparently they believe that the core bore more of the load then the article in 911review.org believed. Still, the difference isn't -that- large. They believe it was 63% and they seem to make no distinction between the core and the steel core columns surrounding it (combined the 911review.org article believe they supported 50% of the load). Since they believe that the core supported 63% of the load, naturally the 100% steel framed perimeter could have only supported the remaining 37%. I would be very interested in finding out why there is a discrepancy between these 2 articles and will try to find why this is but I find it comforting that the discrepancy isn't -that- large.
I have certainly not seen any evidence of this. Could you please point out where my 'own site' (9/11 research? or 911review.org?) said so?
Except for the one I brought up from 911review.org. I can certainly agree that the whole matter could use further investigation and am very interested in seeing where you believe my 'own site' says that the concrete core wasn't reinforced by steel columns.
If I blindly believed it, I would not be asking to further investigate the matter now, would I?
The Structure of the World Trade Center, Round 1
I agree. So does 911review.org, even including a diagram of this belief and stating that it is mistaken. It states the reverse; that the core columns reinforced the concrete core.
To be sure. You are aware that the 9/11 research article in question was referring to the frames of the buildings, not the cores, right? And that a steel frame is much stronger and more resistant to fire than a (lightly) steel reinforced frame?
Ok, the 911review.org article in question is stating that the inner core, which bore 20% of the load, was surrounded by the interior steel core columns, which bore 30% of the load. The remaining 50% of the load was borne by the perimeter columns. If you disagree with any of this, then I can certainly attempt to seek more confirmation as at present, the only source I have for those precise distributions is the above linked article from 911review.org (not to be confused with 911review.com, an official story supporter).
9/11 Research elaborates:
******************
"The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick... In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4 The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building."
******************
Only the Windsor Tower's relatively weak perimeter collapsed; the core remained intact.
Can you quote the part where it discusses the mistake(s?) NIST made? Don't want to have to read through the whole thing
.Yes. Apparently they believe that the core bore more of the load then the article in 911review.org believed. Still, the difference isn't -that- large. They believe it was 63% and they seem to make no distinction between the core and the steel core columns surrounding it (combined the 911review.org article believe they supported 50% of the load). Since they believe that the core supported 63% of the load, naturally the 100% steel framed perimeter could have only supported the remaining 37%. I would be very interested in finding out why there is a discrepancy between these 2 articles and will try to find why this is but I find it comforting that the discrepancy isn't -that- large.
I have certainly not seen any evidence of this. Could you please point out where my 'own site' (9/11 research? or 911review.org?) said so?
Except for the one I brought up from 911review.org. I can certainly agree that the whole matter could use further investigation and am very interested in seeing where you believe my 'own site' says that the concrete core wasn't reinforced by steel columns.
If I blindly believed it, I would not be asking to further investigate the matter now, would I?
ok. i was listening to the lyrics in the the song that i posted here and typed them out as a goof. i seen they can be misconstrued so i deleted it after i reread the first few lines of the song. i know a thing or two about her...cant even remeber the rest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxvV75C1a2g
no personal threat but i'll be more careful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxvV75C1a2g
no personal threat but i'll be more careful.
Thanks James. I was really beginning to wonder if all this stuff about personal attacks not being allowed was an admin only feature
.Thanks.
This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.
Steven Jones debunks some official story claims
Indeed I must first apologize for something- I was referring to Steven Jones debunking one of the aforementioned peer reviewed documents as well as some information from NIST, not debunking Abstaneh specifically. With that in mind, here's an excerpt from the above linked paper:
****************************
My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:
1..2..3..etc..
11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:
Correct — jet collisions did not cause collapses — we can agree on that. MIT’s Thomas Eager also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eager and Musso, 2001).
We continue with Bazant & Zhou:
But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800C. But we continue:
Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core columns and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns total. Many doubt that random fires/damage could cause them to collapse straight down (official theory), and suspect explosives.
Steel-frame: Huge core (left), enormous Heat Sink. Notice workers standing on floor pan which is firmly attached to the interconnected core columns.
They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:
As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate “addendum” that burning natural gas might have been a source of the needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:
And that was just point 11; he's got 15, a conclusion and an afterword as well.
Steven Jones debunks some official story claims
Indeed
I must first apologize for something- I was referring to Steven Jones debunking one of the aforementioned peer reviewed documents as well as some information from NIST, not debunking Abstaneh specifically. With that in mind, here's an excerpt from the above linked paper:****************************
My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:
1..2..3..etc..
11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Correct — jet collisions did not cause collapses — we can agree on that. MIT’s Thomas Eager also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eager and Musso, 2001).
We continue with Bazant & Zhou:
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800C. But we continue:
Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core columns and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns total. Many doubt that random fires/damage could cause them to collapse straight down (official theory), and suspect explosives.
Steel-frame: Huge core (left), enormous Heat Sink. Notice workers standing on floor pan which is firmly attached to the interconnected core columns.
They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate “addendum” that burning natural gas might have been a source of the needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:
Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true.” (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)
****************************And that was just point 11; he's got 15, a conclusion and an afterword as well.
Last edited:
Freedom of the presses belongs to those who own them
This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.
There is always the paper that he and some other 9/11 truth notables published,
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction in The Open Civil Engineering Journal
Unsubstantiated rumours abound...
This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.
There is always the paper that he and some other 9/11 truth notables published,
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction in The Open Civil Engineering Journal
Unsubstantiated rumours abound...
John Skilling's 'missing' analysis and the Journal for 9/11 studies site
This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.
The answer to that is below.
It's the answer to your question. The -real- question is, how did these documents become 'missing'? Perhaps we'll never know for sure, but surely you recognize that the U.S. government has a history of 'dissapearing' inconvenient truths?
Some people have since done an analysis that backs the official story. Of the documents that I have seen, however, sites such as the peer reviewed "The Journal for 9/11 studies" and others have handily debunked their arguments.
This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.
The answer to that is below.
shaman_ said:
It's the answer to your question. The -real- question is, how did these documents become 'missing'? Perhaps we'll never know for sure, but surely you recognize that the U.S. government has a history of 'dissapearing' inconvenient truths?
Some people have since done an analysis that backs the official story. Of the documents that I have seen, however, sites such as the peer reviewed "The Journal for 9/11 studies" and others have handily debunked their arguments.
It’s not his field of expertise. There are those more experience and qualified to speak on the matter than he is. Just accept it and stop arguing the point.
Your idea of an expert is anyone who does a bit of reading. It is not his area of expertise just accept the point and move on.
Hey he might be a start trek expert as well but his field of expertise is cold fusion, not structural engineering or the chemistry of building materials. Just agree and move on.
I’ll move on. It gets tiresome playing your games.
What argument? You were asking me to summarize why I thought Jones was not following a strict methodology.
No what I said was correct scott.
His claims have been taken apart, debunked and ridiculed but the conspiracy theorists move on refusing to see any problems.
… and the answer is?
You said “and thermite arson is not unheard of.” . Find me a case. By ‘not unheard of’ do you mean that you heard a conspiracy theorist mention it once?
Jet fuel, elevators and other debris falling, transformers or other electrical gear exploding, the other tower being struck ect. Did you expect it to be silent?
It was stupid baseless speculation. As was yours regarding thermite at the Madrid Tower.
Your unsubstantiated speculation is worthless.
Until you are to demonstrate that thermite was involved, or really that anyone has ever used thermite for arson, you are pretty much in a land of make believe there.
But lets not ignore the other parallel there. You are claiming that one of the designers claimed the tower would not collapse after an impact from a plane. Perhaps he did, that doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy if it happens. The titanic was supposed to be unsinkable. It sank.
Riddled with mistakes and you know it. As was demonstrated with the Madrid tower, the steel supports were part of the problem with the WTC. Had it the concrete framing the Madrid tower had it may have stayed up. To call them relatively low level isolated fires is absurd. The floors were sagging from the heat!
Watch some footage of the event. No, don’t select corners of photographs!
Based on what?! You just discarded very likely explanations simply because you read otherwise in your stupid conspiracy sites. Don’t pretend you are after any truth.
I don’t know if you would call it a design flaw. It just didn’t allow for the situation of the a jet hitting the building at full speed. I believe high rise buildings built after that era generally have concrete reinforced walls. The WTC only had the fireproofing.
It has no bearing on the imaginary conspiracy theory. I’m guessing that you can’t understand why.
So what softened the steel then? (about the 8th time I have asked)
Maybe it was the fire?
You have devoted dozens of hours to this conspiracy and you don’t even have a clear theory as to how the towers went down. You can’t even account for the softened steel that alone was enough to initiate a collapse.
Then again neither does the whole movement after all these years. It is just lots of half baked ideas thrown in together. Bombs in the basement of a building that collapsed from the top, thermite to cut the steel when the softened steel alone was enough to cause collapse, witness testimony of bomb noises as proof of an incendiary which doesn’t explode. In the end the answer is that they must all be true!
Never mind that fires alone could have caused the steel to buckle and this has been irrefutably proven, from three unrelated fire tests and several unrelated incidents such as Madrid tower.
If I ever cause some doubt to creep in scott you better get to your favorite conspiracy site quick and re-read your favorite passages to reassure yourself you are right.
Yes, buildings can be demolished from the top down & the tons of evidence supporting controlled demolition of the WTC buildings
This post is in response to leopold99's post 17 in this thread from the Site Feedback forum.
Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8
And here's a picture:
It was a steel framed multi storey floating casino that was washed inland by hurricane katrina.
While the explosive nature of the events that destroyed the Twin Towers is evident in their gross features such as the mushrooming of the tops and the huge clouds of concrete dust produced in the air, there are many specific observations that point to the detonations of explosions within the towers.
This post is in response to leopold99's post 17 in this thread from the Site Feedback forum.
Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8
And here's a picture:
It was a steel framed multi storey floating casino that was washed inland by hurricane katrina.
leopold99 said:
While the explosive nature of the events that destroyed the Twin Towers is evident in their gross features such as the mushrooming of the tops and the huge clouds of concrete dust produced in the air, there are many specific observations that point to the detonations of explosions within the towers.
Last edited:
that's it? just one video?
i reviewed at least 7 to 10 videos of controlled demolitions to come to my conclusions.
besides the obvious fact that this isn't a high rise building it also shows very obvious signs of squibs.
also WTC 1 and 2 did not start at the top but instead from the impact site, this one fact alone pretty well nails it that it wasn't a controlled demolition.
i'm afraid your one video of a 3 story structure will not suffice to convince me.
all you are doing scott is taking stuff from another website and posting it here.
you also go on and on about how "solidly built" the towers were.
i offer the following excerpt into the record:
Experiments also were done to evaluate how much sway occupants could comfortably tolerate, however, many subjects experienced dizziness and other ill effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
i reviewed at least 7 to 10 videos of controlled demolitions to come to my conclusions.
besides the obvious fact that this isn't a high rise building it also shows very obvious signs of squibs.
also WTC 1 and 2 did not start at the top but instead from the impact site, this one fact alone pretty well nails it that it wasn't a controlled demolition.
i'm afraid your one video of a 3 story structure will not suffice to convince me.
all you are doing scott is taking stuff from another website and posting it here.
you also go on and on about how "solidly built" the towers were.
i offer the following excerpt into the record:
Experiments also were done to evaluate how much sway occupants could comfortably tolerate, however, many subjects experienced dizziness and other ill effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
Last edited:
you asked for proof that a top-down demolished was possible.
the video provides proof that a top down demolition is possible.
you respond with "i'm afraid your one video of a 3 story structure will not suffice to convince me"
so are you claiming now that the video is not real?
do you accept that it is possible to demolish a building top down?
the video provides proof that a top down demolition is possible.
you respond with "i'm afraid your one video of a 3 story structure will not suffice to convince me"
so are you claiming now that the video is not real?
do you accept that it is possible to demolish a building top down?
so what? many things are possible but that does not mean they apply here. Do you have the capacity to understand that much?
in this case it can be accepted as impossible if you are trying to pass of the fallacious argument of controlled demolition.
it is like coming upon a murder scene, an obvious gunshot wound, with no weapon to be found and claiming that since people commit suicide then this could also be a suicide.
it is like coming upon a murder scene, an obvious gunshot wound, with no weapon to be found and claiming that since people commit suicide then this could also be a suicide.
No because what you cannot seem to grasp is the concept of "what would a reasonable person conclude?"
In the scenario i outlined you have a corpse with a gunshot wound, an undisturbed crime scene and no weapon.
You can ask all kinds of questions but at some point you have to accept reality and i think that is the main problem you are having here because to ask hundreds of nonsensical what if's and create impossible scenario's you would just be laughed at and humiliated which is understandable.
So when you consider all the evidence and look at all the facts then your argument is not possible. It is fantasy and fiction.
In the scenario i outlined you have a corpse with a gunshot wound, an undisturbed crime scene and no weapon.
You can ask all kinds of questions but at some point you have to accept reality and i think that is the main problem you are having here because to ask hundreds of nonsensical what if's and create impossible scenario's you would just be laughed at and humiliated which is understandable.
So when you consider all the evidence and look at all the facts then your argument is not possible. It is fantasy and fiction.
- Status