WTC Collapses

[Headspin]

so what plane didn't hit wtc7 then?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Even if it wasn't a full fuel load do you realise how much 10,000 gallons of Jet A is?

Now how about the 412,000 pounds, 206 tons of aircraft at 550 mph, slaming into the WTC, just how much kenetic energy was released in the target by that?

You dismiss very lightly all of those facts, and the ammount of damage that is inflicted by the impact alone let alone, let alone the fire from 10,000+ gallons of Jet A.

There we go again, "slaming" is very nice but I think it has 2 m's.

Have you noticed that I am the one insisting on knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building? And you are exaggerating again. It was less than 200 tons.

Even if it wasn't a full fuel load do you realise how much 10,000 gallons of Jet A is?

It's about 34 tons. Evenly distributed there would have been 862 tons of steel on each level of the tower. Since it had to taper toward the top there must have been less on the impact floors that is why I insist on a table specifying each level. In the case of the south tower a large percentage of the fuel exploded outside of the building.

These huge airliners weigh 82 tons empty and have a maximum takeoff weight of up to 193 tons.

http://bushstole04.com/911/why_did_wtc_collapse.htm

Strangely enough an NIST report that is supposedly about the impacts doesn't have that information.

NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the World Trade Center Towers

The mass of the airplane, m p . This was assumed to be to be 8,500 slugs (124 × 10^3 kg), which was approximated by estimates of the masses of the aircraft itself, the estimated jet fuel on board, the passengers and their luggage, and the cargo. This was about 70 percent of the maximum takeoff mass of the airplane (McAllister 2002).

That is from the report:

NIST NCSTAR 1-5D Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks PDF page 77

That comes to 136 tons. Why they would have that information in a report about suspended ceilings and not put it in the report about structural damage due to impact is quite beyond my comprehension.

But I can do without exaggerations of data about the plane while people don't even ask the obviously important information about the building. Since the kinetic energy of the plane had two effects and the amount of energy that went into the oscillation cannot be computed without the distribution of mass then that report on the impact damage which does not even bring up the subject is nonsense.

Once people decide to BELIEVE something they can dismiss information that might contradict that belief.

psik

 

[Buffalo Roam]

psikeyhackr, your above post is a bunch of disconnected gobbly gook, bable, what does:

The mass of the airplane, m p . This was assumed to be to be 8,500 slugs (124 × 10^3 kg), which was approximated by estimates of the masses of the aircraft itself, the estimated jet fuel on board, the passengers and their luggage, and the cargo. This was about 70 percent of the maximum takeoff mass of the airplane (McAllister 2002).

Prove? It doesn't say anything at all, it is kludge, no usefull information.

psikeyhackr, if you care to look it up a 757 weighs in at take off according to the Boeing Data at:

Max. take-off weight Boeing 757-200...115,680 kg (255,000 lb)

Boeing 757-300.....123,600 kg (272,500 lb).

The 767 according to the Boeing numbers weighs in at:

Maximum take-off weight Boeing 767-200.....315,000 lb

Boeing 767-400ER .......450,000 lb.

So even at the lightest weight what is the kinetic energy of a 757-200 at 500+ mph to the building, all confined to 3 floors, plus 10,000 of jet A fuel burning for 20+ minuets, you write those energy off very easily.

For your information a 757 at 804 m/sec delivers a kinetic energy of:

kinetic energy (K) = 27,624,530,661.9 foot-pound

27 and 1/2 Billion Foot Pounds of Energy.

kinetic energy (K) = 37,453,834,485.6 joule

37 and a 1/2 Billion Joules of energy.

And you dismiss that as inconsequential to the collapse of the WTC Towers?

That is the lowest energy from the lightest plane, and I do believe that the 757 that hit the WTC was a 757-300 which up the energy figures.

The second plane was a Boeing 767..... at 804 m/sec delivers 46,266,882,330.5 Joules of energy to a target.

46 and 1/4 billion joules of destructive energy.

Now tell me that the impact of the aircraft wasn't enough to cause the damage necessary to cause the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

 

[shaman_]

does anyone know how big the plane was that didn't hit wtc 7.

Because it shouldn't collapse if not hit by a plane right?
If you say 'yes' you might then want to think about why it would have been supposedly rigged to blow in the first place then. Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Prove? It doesn't say anything at all, it is kludge, no usefull information.

psikeyhackr, if you care to look it up a 757 weighs in at take off according to the Boeing Data at:

Max. take-off weight Boeing 757-200...115,680 kg (255,000 lb)

Boeing 757-300.....123,600 kg (272,500 lb).

The 767 according to the Boeing numbers weighs in at:

Maximum take-off weight Boeing 767-200.....315,000 lb

Boeing 767-400ER .......450,000 lb.

That quote was from the NCSTAR1 report.

How often do you think planes on normal routes are taking off with their MAXIMUM LOADS? They don't need the fuel maxed out most of the time.

You think that you solve engineering problems by talking BS? If you have a better source for what ACTUALLY HIT THE BUILDING then provide the LINK.

psik

 

[shaman_]

Post #744 was in reference to WTC7 psikeyhackr.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Post #744 was in reference to WTC7 psikeyhackr.

Sorry, screwed up.

 

[leopold]

There have been huge fires in buildings constructed in the manner the twin towers were, including the North Tower in 1975, and there was not even a hint of a possible collapse. Why weren't the floor trusses affected then? The SFRM being knocked off by the aircraft is not very plausible as the collapses initiated above where the major impacts occurred.

this is false. the collapse initiated at the impact site on both towers.

headspin,
why didn't the "nanothermite" above the impact site explode?

scott,
any ideas on what could explode on the ground floor when the fire that caused it is on the 50th?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't believe the fact of whether it collapsed or not is important, because they are two entirely different structures even if we ignore the fact that one of them was hit by a fully layden 767 at 550mph and the other wasn't. The important point here is that office fires can heat steel to very high temperatures in quick time.

This is verified by pictures of warped steel before and after collapse. There was a link in this nutty forum a while back about a steel inspector inspecting the steel AFTER the clean up operation and the damage was consistent with very high temperatures and he had pictures to show for it.

If you think I'm going looking for the link again, you can go do it yourself.



It was removed over a period of months/years and kept in a scrapyard where I already told of a steel inspector having access to it. And I am sure I saw a link of a hanger where much of the WTC is being stored. There was even a 360 degree photograph of this steel.



Well the link I spoke of above would be a good place to start. Since you already knew of the fire tests I spoke of, you will know about the steel inspection of the WTC, saves me having to go find links.



Even if they didn't, it would not prompt me to believe that it was a controlled demolition. It takes a special kind of crazy to jump to that.

The WTC steel was looked at but had no forensic testing or analysis done on it while it was at the Freshkills landfill. 99.5% of the steel had been recycled before NIST started their investigation into the collapses of the towers.

How much damage do you think the planes actually did? Do you realize the wings never got anywhere near the core as the plane went in on a 30 degree roll angle and the wings were shredded by the exterior wall and multiple floors. So now you have a 16.5 foot diameter fuselage going through a 209 foot square building. The core was 137 x 87. By volume alone it couldn't get many of the columns. It seems those aircraft hits were causal ruses. The jet fuel was gone in minutes since what was left after the fireballs would have aerosolized on impact and coated things as a thin film which burned off fast. NIST even says that.

Whether office fires get hot or not is not the point. Analysis of a catastrophic collapse would be done to see just how hot different structural members got to ascertain how the failure ensued. That couldn't be done for the towers because the steel was gone before the real investigation was started. Think about that.

Additionally, the North tower fire in 1975 raged for three hours over six floors so it wasn't a small fire.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

this is false. the collapse initiated at the impact site on both towers.

headspin,
why didn't the "nanothermite" above the impact site explode?

scott,
any ideas on what could explode on the ground floor when the fire that caused it is on the 50th?

You should read the NIST report and tell them where you think the collapses initiated. They watched a lot of video and say the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2 are where the collapses initiated. The 98th floor of WTC 1 was only hit by a few feet of the end of the aircraft wing and lost none of its columns. The 82nd floor of WTC 2 had very little aircraft damage also.
You will have to take it up with them if you think this isn't true.

 

[leopold]

You should read the NIST report and tell them where you think the collapses initiated. They watched a lot of video and say the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2 are where the collapses initiated. The 98th floor of WTC 1 was only hit by a few feet of the end of the aircraft wing and lost none of its columns. The 82nd floor of WTC 2 had very little aircraft damage also.
You will have to take it up with them if you think this isn't true.

every video i've seen that was shot on the day of collapse shows the collapse initiating at the impact site.

 

[scott3x]

You should read the NIST report and tell them where you think the collapses initiated. They watched a lot of video and say the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2 are where the collapses initiated. The 98th floor of WTC 1 was only hit by a few feet of the end of the aircraft wing and lost none of its columns. The 82nd floor of WTC 2 had very little aircraft damage also.
You will have to take it up with them if you think this isn't true.

every video i've seen that was shot on the day of collapse shows the collapse initiating at the impact site.

Technically the collapses still within the 'impact site'. The relatively lightly damaged portions though, not the heavily damaged ones. I've begun to think that we shouldn't really be focusing on this at all though- instead, we should be focusing more on why it is that NIST never went beyond it's 'poised for collapse' computer model. I believe this because Szamboti and Frank Legge believe it is -impossible- that the collapse could have happened so quickly. Their argument is made in the article 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

every video i've seen that was shot on the day of collapse shows the collapse initiating at the impact site.

You are simply incorrect about this. The collapse in the North Tower started at the 98th floor, which is two to three floors above where the aircraft nose entered the tower on a 10 degree downward incline. The same goes for the South Tower.

Nanothermite requires a very high temperature ignition, so fires would not ignite it. It is also not shock sensitive like C-4. However, it could have been knocked off or out of place by the impacts. Hence, the collapses were initiated as close as possible to the impact site but where there was little actual damage. Most people haven't looked at this anomaly.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Technically the collapses still within the 'impact site'. The relatively lightly damaged portions though, not the heavily damaged ones. I've begun to think that we shouldn't really be focusing on this at all though- instead, we should be focusing more on why it is that NIST never went beyond it's 'poised for collapse' computer model. I believe this because Szamboti and Frank Legge believe it is -impossible- that the collapse could have happened so quickly.

Scott, I am glad you think the paper, on sudden onset being impossible due to fire, has merit.

However, the point concerning where the collapses actually originated has merit also. It is highly improbable that the collapses would have initiated where there was essentially no impact damage. It points to some sort of control since the collapses initiated very close to where the impacts occurred but where the least number of demolition devices would have been affected by the impacts. Many people simply haven't looked at this. On its own it can't make or break the case but it does reinforce the notion that the destruction of the towers was an inside job and not caused by the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires. It appears that the aircraft impacts were simply causal ruses.

 

[scott3x]

Technically the collapses still within the 'impact site'. The relatively lightly damaged portions though, not the heavily damaged ones. I've begun to think that we shouldn't really be focusing on this at all though- instead, we should be focusing more on why it is that NIST never went beyond it's 'poised for collapse' computer model. I believe this because Szamboti and Frank Legge believe it is -impossible- that the collapse could have happened so quickly.

Scott, I am glad you think the paper, on sudden onset being impossible due to fire, has merit.

However, the point concerning where the collapses actually originated has merit also. It is highly improbable that the collapses would have initiated where there was essentially no impact damage. It points to some sort of control since the collapses initiated very close to where the impacts occurred but where the least number of demolition devices would have been affected by the impacts. Many people simply haven't looked at this. On its own it can't make or break the case but it does reinforce the notion that the destruction of the towers was an inside job and not caused by the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires. It appears that the aircraft impacts were simply causal ruses.

Definitely. I just thought it might be better to focus on something that's impossible instead of improbable- the official story believers can still hang on to the fact that an improbable occurence is still possible. They can't do the same for an impossible occurence.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Definitely. I just thought it might be better to focus on something that's impossible instead of improbable- the official story believers can still hang on to the fact that an improbable occurence is still possible. They can't do the same for an impossible occurence.

There is a good article on which floors were the initiation sites at the Journal of 911 Studies in the Letters section. It is entitled "WTC Collapse Initiation Floors: What They Were And How Much Damage They Suffered" by Kevin Fenton.

The refutation of the Official story for the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 is essentially a cumulative argument. All of these anomalies and contradictions add up to show that the present Official story is inept in it's ability to explain the actual observations concerning what happened to the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, that other much more plausible explanations exist, and that a new investigation is needed. Among a list of other things, any new investigation should depose those who had access to the interiors of those buildings and those involved with recycling the steel before it could have a real forensic analysis done on it.

 

[leopold]

You are simply incorrect about this. The collapse in the North Tower started at the 98th floor, which is two to three floors above where the aircraft nose entered the tower on a 10 degree downward incline. The same goes for the South Tower.

amazing.
talk about "NIST tweaking model".
anybody that has access to the videos can see for themselves.

 

[scott3x]

You are simply incorrect about this. The collapse in the North Tower started at the 98th floor, which is two to three floors above where the aircraft nose entered the tower on a 10 degree downward incline. The same goes for the South Tower.

amazing.
talk about "NIST tweaking model".
anybody that has access to the videos can see for themselves.

Anybody that has access to the videos can see what for themselves?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

amazing.
talk about "NIST tweaking model".
anybody that has access to the videos can see for themselves.

NIST did frame by frame analysis and blowups so you would think they were able to say where the collapses initiated accurately.

The impact sites aren't just across one floor, they are over several floors, and Floor 98 in the North tower actually had a small amount of damage to the perimeter face.

While there was fire on the 98th floor, what we are talking about here is that the collapse initiated on a floor which had essentially no column damage from the aircraft impact and was at the top edge of the impact zone.

One wouldn't be able to discern this on You Tube videos and you seem to be arguing from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

Read the short four page paper "WTC Collapse Initiation Floors: What They Were And How Much Damage They Suffered" in the Letters section of the Journal of 911 Studies. It is at journalof911studies.com.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

That quote was from the NCSTAR1 report.

How often do you think planes on normal routes are taking off with their MAXIMUM LOADS? They don't need the fuel maxed out most of the time.

You think that you solve engineering problems by talking BS? If you have a better source for what ACTUALLY HIT THE BUILDING then provide the LINK.

psik

I didn't use max load data for the kinetic energy, the impact energies were still in the billions of Foot Pounds, and Joules'

Energy not spread across the entire building but confined to a couple of floors, cutting through load bearing structures, beams and wall, add to that the type of construction, lite steel, corrugated, and bent steel, support structures, no mystery, just bad construction techniques, and overestimation of the safety margins, not the first time that has happened, look at the Titanic, somebody screwed the safety margins on that one big time.