Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: 9/11 Debate (Read 20894 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from CV and mad panic beha...
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #150 –
Quote from: LP on
There is no vanishing floors, each floor, the ones below and above the impact weighed about 1,450,000kg. The floors falling from above alone has a mass of about 15,000,000kg even without the walls and other structures. The collapsed floors reported would create a void only filled by structural members two or three floors in height, once those structural members fail buckling the next impact of the 10 or more stories above that are collapsing is 2 or 3 floors below, it's not hard to understand. The top floors collapsing at WTC1 or WTC2 were like a dead blow hammer that was 4050sqm and 22,500,000 kg in size.

I understand the concept of pancaking, but it is reliant on all structural members failing in unison (or close enough too) which is not practical.

This is all on the proviso that the structural members were sufficiently weakened to begin with. Talk about the heat/temperature of fires and it getting hot enough to get to 50% structural integrity is somewhat of a best case scenario, but with the redundancy built into the structure, it should still be able to withstand that kind of weight.

On another note, the fire rating of structural members is also something that cannot be agreed upon from 'your side'.
Somewhere it said all asbestos fire rating was removed from the buildings.
Elsewhere it says that the debris was hazardous due to asbestos.

Is it all gone or not?

Did it come down due to no fire rating?? Or is that a cover story?
Did they cite asbestos in the wreckage to keep people away so they could cover their tracks? Why was all evidence in such a big crime ultimately destroyed before any proper investigation could be done?

Do you see why there are many questions over this matter? There would be 100's more..

No one has commented about witness reports and the media blackout on them which followed.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #152 –
Quote from: LP on
The next biggest equivalent crash was a B-25 into the Empire State Building.

B-25 = 15m wide x 15,000kg flying at 230mph.

767 = 40m wide x 150,000 to 200,000kg MTOW flying at +550mph. 10x the weight and at least 2x the speed,

We need a physicist to tell us all about kinetic and potential energy! ;)

Apart from the size difference LP, the fuel capacity is significant.

A B-25 with long range tanks carried 974 US gallons of fuel.  A 767 carries 29,980 US gallons; more than enough to create fires of very high but variable intensity.  Those fires were hot enough to cause the steel to lose structural strength and to distort as a result of temperature variation.  It's just basic metallurgy.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #153 –
.. and both aircraft banked to hit more than one floor

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #154 –
Inspired by the 9/11 critics & having heard that various locations around NSW were floodproofed and yet allegedly they flooded anyway, I can only conclude the government flooded those areas deliberately. The people claiming that rain caused the flooding of their properties must be crisis actors.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #155 –
Quote from: DJC on
Apart from the size difference LP, the fuel capacity is significant.

A B-25 with long range tanks carried 974 US gallons of fuel.  A 767 carries 29,980 US gallons; more than enough to create fires of very high but variable intensity.  Those fires were hot enough to cause the steel to lose structural strength and to distort as a result of temperature variation.  It's just basic metallurgy.

Um, rubbish.

The NIST report acknowledges 90% of the remaining fuel load went on impact. But that's a red herring.

Wait, so you're telling me next to no fuel exploded (was vaporised) when the plane hit the building? Sweet.

Loss of structural strength in 80+ floors (below the impacted floors) of mega reinforced, over engineered steel.

And a remarkable, symmetrical fall in next to free fall speed.

Zero chance.

Try harder.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #156 –
Quote from: flyboy77 on
Loss of structural strength in 80+ floors (below the impacted floors) of mega reinforced, over engineered steel.
No number of floors can withstand the mass of the 20 floors or so above collapsing on them, just the floors pancaking, without the weight of the folding superstructure without the exterior walls weighed at least 28,000,000 kg. It doesn't really matter how that mass gets to the 80th floor or lower levels, it's an irrelevant argument, because even if it collapsed at 1/10th free fall it would still destroy the levels below.

The NIST report also correctly points out that structural steel fails completely at about 1500°F, while aluminium and titanium once ignited burn at above 3200°F, both are common material components of aircraft. Water cannot be used to extinguish these pyrophoric fires, because water(H2O) starts to disassociate into it's main components Hydrogen and Oxygen at those temperatures, which further fuels the fire and actually increases the combustion temperature which then feeds back into a cascading thermal event. If a nitrogen saturated environment is present, some fire fighting systems use nitrogen, titanium will ignite at temperatures as low as 550°C because it is part of a rare group of metals that reduce in nitrogen preferentially to oxygen.
The Force Awakens!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #157 –
Without knowing for sure, I can't understand why a building would collapse under its own weight.

It happily holds itself up there anyway, so whether those floors are collapsing or not is quite irrelevant one would think.  Also fire tends to spread upwards not downward, so I would have thought the top part of the building suffering some structural issues as it went up would weigh less not more as half its mass is incineratwd in the process.  These planes didn't hit the base of the towers, and I remember one of them hitting quite high up.

Sure things happen but the whole thing smells a bit.  Was any of the building left standing?  I just remember them falling.

Anyway, I'm no engineer, firebug or physicist.

The official line on 9/11 is just one more reason why I think that modern democracies are dictatorships that are dressed in sheep's clothing.  We are provided the illusion of choice whilst society keeps running for the benefit of the same group of oligarchs that continue making millions whilst more people fall into poverty.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #158 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
It happily holds itself up there anyway, so whether those floors are collapsing or not is quite irrelevant one would think.
@Thryleon You can rest a 5kg sledge hammer on your foot no problems, but I dare you to put it there by dropping it from the metre or two! ;)

Even if you deliberately slow it's fall, or halve the distance, it is still going to hit your foot with forces many many times it's resting mass.

It's all about kinetic energy, @kruddler studied physics he can give you some advice.

I'm sure you can extend a home from two stories to four stories building it piecemeal, but I don't know anyone that drops an extra two stories on top of a two story house, not even from the tiniest bit above!

The area of physics that covers this in the real world and is used by engieers to solve load problems is called Statics and Dynamics.
The Force Awakens!
 

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #159 –
LP, the mass of that part of the building below the fires would have offered huge resistance to the floors falling from above, even if the fall had started instantaneously, i.e. were vapourised. Have you done the calculations taking that into account? Say 13 or 14 floors falling on top of the rest. Are you assuming the steel throughout the whole building had failed?
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #160 –
Quote from: cookie2 on
LP, the mass of that part of the building below the fires would have offered huge resistance to the floors falling from above, even if the fall had started instantaneously, i.e. were vapourised. Have you done the calculations taking that into account? Say 13 or 14 floors falling on top of the rest. Are you assuming the steel throughout the whole building had failed?
exactly my point.  The planes hit about a third from top and the building was flattened like a pancake top to bottom.

Like I said I'm no physicist.  The dropping a sledge hammer on your foot analogy is possibly the worst analogy, your foot isn't capable of supporting a sledge hammer in the first place.

Anyway, I could probably read up on it, but from start to finish this event will never sit well with me Nd is just one more reason why you always take the official story with a grain of salt.  If its too simple to be true, it probably is.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #161 –
I'm not one to put much credence into conspiracy theories.
That's just me though.
The basic reason is that it requires so many folks to be involved in the planning and execution, and they then have to maintain a level of secrecy with few or no leaks that it just defies logic.
From an initial thought (e.g. 'Let's start a war on terror')... how do you get from that point to recruiting people of power and expertise to your cause, and the end result of crashing planes and bringing down buildings?
Somewhere along the way someone must think it's not the brightest idea and say so.

That's not to say I don't believe in cover ups or distortions that individuals may promote to protect their own deficiencies or lack of action.

Perhaps the biggest problem with some of these theories is that the internet has provided such a wide range of information that you can find a group or article to support any idea or view of history.
We naturally gravitate and give more weight to those articles that support our own pre-conceived ideas.

A well written article with a couple of eminent names thrown in can have us questioning some theory.
A quick google and you can have a completely opposite view.

How do you make sense of that?
The more you read, the more confused or more zealous you get. (I'm in the confused camp)
The more technical the article the more confusing for simple folk.
It becomes a case of 'my eminent person' is more credible than 'your eminent person'... but again that's largely based on a personal bias.
We discard or discredit views that don't fit with our concept of things.
In such cases it's not necessarily a case of... 'the more you read the more informed you become.'

History shows that there are numerous cases of folks swimming against the mainstream of thought that in the end have been vindicated....but that works as an argument for both sides of the conspiracy debate.

People can believe what they want to believe, or choose to believe...you'll struggle to change folks minds on a football forum with links at ten paces.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #162 –
Lods, I am not putting forward any conspiracy theories but just trying to understand how the "official" explanation hangs together.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #163 –
Quote from: cookie2 on
LP, the mass of that part of the building below the fires would have offered huge resistance to the floors falling from above, even if the fall had started instantaneously, i.e. were vapourised. Have you done the calculations taking that into account? Say 13 or 14 floors falling on top of the rest. Are you assuming the steel throughout the whole building had failed?
@cookie2  Most buildings are basically eggshells or hollow wire frames with central/internal supporting columns, not solid like the pyramids. Those columns work in very specific circumstances, kept in alignment by the floors which act as supports and dampeners. As the floors begin to pancake they reduced lateral support to the columns and effectively the columns develop kinks from a shockwave, initially they almost ring like a guitar string at some fundamental frequency, then eventually under compressive force they bow like overloaded straws, once bowed even slightly in any direction they have a fraction of the required strength to support even the buildings static mass, let alone the ongoing force of continuing impacts.

But really, in a failure like this, you only test the very weakest component, and in this case it was probably the stays and struts that supported the floors.
The Force Awakens!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #164 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
Like I said I'm no physicist.  The dropping a sledge hammer on your foot analogy is possibly the worst analogy, your foot isn't capable of supporting a sledge hammer in the first place.
What's your foot made of, crepe paper?

A sledge hammer is typically only 5kg, the weight of a very healthy baby! :o
The Force Awakens!