This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection
Preface: Bill Black writes today that Wall Street apologists say that calling for prosecution of Wall Street fraud is like saying the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
Now that Bin Laden has been confirmed to be dead, it has been established that Saddam Hussein was not behind 9/11 (one of the main reasons for the Iraq war), and Iran
has been accused of having a hand in 9/11 - potentially forming the
basis for a war against Iran - it is time to revisit some important,
unanswered questions.
This essay does not argue that bombs brought down the Twin Towers or World Trade Building 7, even though many top structural engineers believe that is what happened, and people could easily have planted bombs in the trade centers without anyone noticing and without the conspiracy being discovered.
It simply addresses the frequent argument that fires caused the metal
to sag, which brought down the 3 buildings, and that the case is closed.
The Fires at the World Trade Centers Were NOT Very Hot
The
government agency in charge of the investigation of why three buildings
collapsed on 9/11 - the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) - says that paint tests indicated low steel temperatures -- 480 Fahrenheit -- "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire". NIST also said that microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values of 600 Celsius (1112 degrees Fahrenheit) for any significant time.
Numerous top fire protection engineers have said that the fires in the World Trade Centers were not that hot. For example:
- A
mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection
Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans
Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S.
Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area
Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the
Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection
Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of
San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States
(Edward S. Munyak) says that the fires weren't big enough to bring down
Building 7:
- The
former head of NIST's Fire Science Division, who is
one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and
safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering
(Dr. James Quintiere), called
for an independent review of the World Trade Center
collapse investigation. "I would really like
to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both
structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I
think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at
[that fire and damage from the attacks brought down the buildings] is
questionable.
In addition, Thomas Eager, a
Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT and a
defender of the official story, concluded
that the temperatures in the Twin Towers never exceeded 800 Celsius
(1472 degrees Fahrenheit). Eager pointed out that, contrary to popular
belief, jet fuel from the planes did not increase the temperature of the fires.
Structural engineer Antonio Artha notes:
Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings.
Structural engineer Graham John Inman points out:
The fire on this building [World Trade Building 7] was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
Thermal
images also suggest that the temperature of the steel in the north
tower at the time of the fire was not much more than 250 degrees Fahrenheit (and see this).
The Argument Evaporates Upon Inspection
Defenders
of the "official" version of 9/11 say, in rebuttal, that the fires
didn't have to be that hot, because - while not hot enough to melt steel - they were hot enough to cause the metal to sag.
It
is irrelevant (and beyond the scope of this post) whether or not their
argument is correct. Specifically, since even defenders of official
story admit that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, then it is
impossible to explain the huge quantify of molten steel which was
observed under Ground Zero for months after the attacks (see next
section, below).
Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was EVAPORATED. Specifically, as the New York Times reports, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7:
A
combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might
have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But
that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures.
(pay-per-view).
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
It is simply impossible that fires from jet fuels and office materials could do that.
Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for MONTHS After Attacks
There was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11:
- The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)
- A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
- An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
- New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
- A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".
- A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
- An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
- The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
- According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
- A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
- According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One
fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the
towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but
the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
- A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in
mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part
would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order
of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of
concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about
300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk
of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."
- A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
- Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There
are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories
underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond
a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about
it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
- A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for
about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its
regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything
from molten steel beams to human remains...."
- New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."
- As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
- A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam"
- See also witness statements at the beginning of this video.
The
fact that there was molten steel under ground zero for months after
9/11 is very odd, especially since firefighters sprayed millions of
gallons of water on the fires and applied high-tech fire retardants.
Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:
The
spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply
the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of
water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:
This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:
Moreover, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.
It was not the collapses which caused steel to melt. Specifically, a professor emeritus of physics has proven that the collapses themselves could not have melted steel. And Brent Blanchard - a recognized expert in controlled demolition - stated in a telephone interview with physicist Steven Jonesv that he has witnessed hundreds of controlled demolitions, but has never seen molten metal at any of the demolition sites.
So how does NIST explain the molten metal? It denies its existence:
»
- advertisements -
Thanks for posting this. I agree that WTC 7 is VERY suspicious. Small fires and asymmetrical damage causing a symmetrical collapse at free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint. The physics of WTC 7 are the smoking gun of 9-11. This documentary is perhaps the most comprehensive on this stuff...
http://www.911docs.net/911_mysteries.php
Who would put it past the gov't to off a few thousand citizens to further the aims of the military-industrial elite?
There is a song for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRpAANsoG8I
And it isn't nice to lie - even when you want to make a point about the reasons for liberating Iraq.
Message from New Zealand : Most people here know that whilst Islamic operatives/terrorists probably played a role in the tragedy, it was, at most, a bit role. Three towers were demolitioned...and not by Arabs. So, we know the US Gov't (or arms of therein) were responsible. No-one is going to jail for this
Obama?...that man is a Manchurian Candidate of proportions so large and evident it is a joke really (were it not a tragedy). Natural born citizen?..aahh, no. But he will be president for 5 more years and nothing will change that...and no-one is going to jail for this.
OBL...he is dead...and has been for ages. This man was the world's greatest red herring. Maybe that's why he had a sea burial.
I never, ever, ever thought I would begin delving into the realm of "trutherism". Mainly because I just didnt want to begin to believe that such a terrible thing could have been perpetrated by a country against its own citizens. The same country for which my grandfather fought the Nazis in Germany 6 decades ago. I also always thought there was no way the same administration that so spectacularly botched the Iraq War-cupation could have pulled off such a flawless operation in 911.
But, since the OBL compound "raid", swift dumping of the body, no release of pictures, and the media disaster that was the constant story changes, I have changed my tune. I have begun to look at 911 much more sceptically. And FWIW, I thought WTC7 was extrmely suspicious from the very moment I watched it fall live that day. You can also throw in the almost unfathomable link between Zacharias Mussoui and Nick Berg. Some of this stinks to high heaven.
Some things in this thread I knew. But, other things I didnt. Keep it up.
The main premise of the site is the destruction of the US by its own greed. They'll throw in a post on the 911 conspiracy to attract pseudo chemists, engineers and uncivil engineers like yourself once in a while--- for pure amusement... so welcome...
and by the way, please argue my points rather than stutter...or STFU..
And are you, a pseudo Madman in the Madhouse? What evidence do you have that I am a pseudo anything. That is why you can't be taken seriously. But that said, I will respond to your earlier point though it is somewhat off topic. We both agree that the oligarchical financial scumbags used 9/11 to line their pockets and destroy what remained of the integrity of this country. Where we disagree is whether they just saw an opportunity presented by other immoral people or whether, in their impatience, they manufactured that opportunity themselves. The only way to answer that question is to analyze the physical and eyewitness evidence. After several years of this, I can only conclude that all the towers were brought down with nano-thermite girder cutters and high explosives. You give no evidence to the contrary, offer an opportunistic theory, and make ad hominem attacks on the validity of people who hold a different conclusion. Why should we take you seriously?
Almost ten years after the foundational event staged by criminals within the federal government used as the rationale to accelerate the destruction of the constitution, steal “We the People” blind and morph us into a police state I am disgusted with how many Americans still haven’t a clue.
Get lives. A Boeing 767 traveling at 500 mph is not that far from the speed of a 9 mm bullet. Each plane caused multi floor structural damage to buildings with a flawed design. Once one floor pancaked the whole buildings were coming down from the cumulative weight above. No conspiracy. Not complicated. Just very very sad...
Now WTC 7 seems more complicated...
@ "Now WTC 7 seems more complicated..."
or
more obvious to those not familiar with
high rise buildings being imploded with weaponry
and high temerpature explosives.
there, fixed it.
A 9mm round goes 900 feet per second to 1200 feet per second
500 MPH converts to 733 feet per second.
Can a 9 mm pentrate steel? NO!
A .50 BMG goes 2300 fps - 3000 fps.
Can a .50 caliber BMG penetrate 2" steel?
See for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwzDzX4XP7E
The steel beams of the WTC where 2 1/2" at their thinest point.
So, can aluminum with 1/5 the shear strength of steel penetrate 2 1/2" steel going 733 feet per second?
HELL NO!
That has got to be one of the most bizarre, asinine comparisons I've ever seen come from a person over the age of 12. A 9mm bullet weighs somewhere around 100-150 grains...correct? A Boeing 757 weighs 250,000 POUNDS. There's 7000 grains in a pound. Therfore, the weight of that plane was roughly equal to 17.5 MILLION 9mm bullets.
First day of physics class, should you ever decide to actually study it, you'll learn about force, mass, and inertia. A quarter of a million pounds is going to flatten you if it's dumped on your head...doesn't matter if it's a quarter million pounds of feathers or bowling balls. Steel beams can withstand a helluva lot more compression force than they can bridge. It was a perpendicular impact.
So I should suppose the wtc weighed nothing?
Anyway thanks for taking the bait.
First assuming 200K lbs is correct even if the plane was a single crystal solid block of aluminum, the total pressure force will not transfer to a steel beam instantaneously. The WTC didn't absorb the entire force of the plane at the moment of impact.The speed at which pressure (atomic displacement) is transmitted through an atomic lattice is limited to the speed of sound . Total force is spread out over time. It is also spread out over an area.
We know that the plane is not a solid block of aluminum. It is a bunch aluminum sheets riveted and screwed to aluminum ribbing. The WTC is a bunch of steel box columns welded together with steel plates and steel bolts.
At the moment of impact , the pressure force starts traveling through the structure of the steel and aluminum. Seriously which do you think is going to fail first when the traveling pressure wave reachs it? The steel bolt or the aluminum rivet?
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. There probably isn't a single connection in the plane as strong as even a single steel bolt. The shear strength of the WTC steel is an order of magnitude higher than aluminum. Do you think more force gets transmitted to the WTC more than the plane? Are you high?
To absolutely prove the point, here's a hypothetical.
If I flung the WTC at a stationary plane at 500 MPH do you really think the plane is going to stay there and penetrate the WTC?
The point is there isn't any piece of the plane that will not fail and shear before a WTC column.
I mean let's get real. What do we use to penetrate steel? Depleted uranium. Even that is liquified and vaporized when it impacts a tank. It also only leaves a 2-4 inch hole.
I mean c'mon this shit is beyond ridiculous.
If not .. replicate it. I really wanna see some aluminum punch through 2 1/2 inch steel plate. Not going to happen.
What do we use to penetrate steel? In some cases, we use WATER...ultra-high pressure jets of water will penetrate steel.
First I could give a fuck about any religion.
But in regards to water...
No shit sherlock, guess how much PSI they use? Why do they use arasive garnets ?
Also the water doesn't stay rigid does it? Neither will an aluminum airframe.
What trying to be proved here? Which will fail structurally first at collision? An aluminum frame thats riveted or a steel frame that's bolted?
Before 911, every person on earth would have picked the latter.
This is from a bird.
http://i52.tinypic.com/291noew.jpg
You're doing a great job indio
He's doing a great job of making himself look like a fool.
Let's get one thing out in the open, shall we? You (Indio) drop vague references and some military lingo to give the impression that you served in the military. However, I am quite certain that you did not. You're a wannabe. Spend a lot of time watching the Military channel and playing computer games, but you never quite grew the onions to actually put yourself in a position of physical hardship or peril. Your bravado on this site (as well as other truther sites, I'm sure) is consistent with the behavior of a person who is trying to mask and compensate for their inadequacies. But I digress...
How can soft lead penetrate steel? If I throw a bullet at a road sign, it is going to bounce off, but if I shoot it from a rifle, it will cut through it with ease. For the umpteenth time, mass x velocity. Lead can penetrate steel at a high enough velocity. Water can penetrate steel at a high enough velocity. Hell, CO2 can penetrate steel at a high enough velocity. And, not that it matters, a component of those aluminum airframes is aluminum oxide, which is harder than steel.
You and your little sidekick Davey use the same trite BS as all the truthers, Holocaust deniers, UFO geeks, and every other fringe kook loser group. You spray asinine questions that would require hours to answer, refuse to acknowledge answers given, take answers and statements out of context, make pathetic stabs at a joke when you get owned, and claim victory if your superiors choose not to waste any more time playing footsie. You are an uneducated kook. You are a wimpy loser who uses conspiracies to explain away your failures. You hide behind big talk, but you lack the brains to back up anything you say. The only way you are ever going to be satisfied, in this particular (non)controversy or any other, is for somebody to step up and tell you that you got screwed over and that it isn't YOUR fault that you are a coward and a failure. Sorry, but that somebody isn't going to be me. A good place to start would be for you to shut your computer off once in a while, trade the Mtn. Dew for some water, get off of your fat, lazy ass and get into something that resembles shape. Then you might want to consider actually getting yourself a formal education. Your spelling and grammar are horrendous, as is your general command of the English language. Your literacy in the subjects of math, science, and mechanics is appallingly deficient. Being able to regurgitate little factoids like some garden-variety Asperger's patient isn't the same as an educated or analytical approach. You are wasting your life in a hebephrenic stupor, with your nose pressed to the screen as you pour over conspiracy websites and neo-Nazi garbage. As I stated earlier, yours is an emotional stance, and no amount of reason or logic is going to pry that little shred of perceived superiority from your fat, greasy, Cheeto-stained fingers. So, good luck to you. Perhaps one day you'll actually jump into the shower and then head out into the world and consider trying to get a date with an actual living, breathing woman.
Let's take a walk through your logic
(1) only someone who has served in the military has the ability to analyze the physics of a terrorist attack, an airplane accident, or the unique collapse of a building
(2) any citizen who attempts to do this in a democratic questioning of their government is trying to compensate for male inadequacies
(3) a component of the airplanes in aluminum oxide therfore they can completely penetrate the thick multi core column structure of the world trade center despite it being designed to withstand that very event. (and actually its only an outside layer a few micron layers thick)
(4) because two posters tend to agree on a few issues, that makes them conspiratorial "sidekicks". (So I guess you do believe in conspiracies)
(5) because we raise questions that "would take hours to answer" that qualifies them as "asinine"
(6) therefore, much of our debate methods demonstrate "asperger" qualities, Nazi sympathies, poor physical conditoning, bad luck with women, and an affinity for Cheetos.
Ps. Asperger patients often demonstrate brilliance in focused areas - think Rainman?
cool, the airliners had ultra-high pressure jets attached.
The steel columns were incredibly thick - each wall measuring 2.5 inch (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of either of the columns was 5 inch (12.7 cm).
front armour of the best tank of the WWII period - T-34 - was only 1.8 inch (4.5 cm) and it was single-walled. Yet there were practically no armour-piercing artillery shell available that time that would be capable of penetrating such front armour.
Was I responding to you fucknut? Read the thread, asshole, before you spout your juvenile shit. He asked a question, and I answered it - you fucking coward. Get out of your mommy & daddy's basement and go do something of value. You are a pussy, a coward, and a weak loser.
Fucking truther. Why don't you just be honest about the fact that this is all just a bunch of crap to mask your real beef? You don't like "them Jews" and this is the latest trick in your thumb-dick Nazi wannabe arsenal.
Do yourself and us a favor and go kill yourself...loser.
I'm a truther and your obviously a...peacekeeper. My favorite part is how my questioning my government makes me a nazi
good job. I love your image of throwing the WTC at the plane. Really slams the point home.
beyond ridiculous is another good image
What he said...
sorry "Reese"packcake theory was discredited by both sides soon after being exposed as impossible due to architectual engineering of the towers - go back and ask your kids' teacher why...
Oh really? Well multiple floors of a skyscraper are what we engineers call "very heavy." The survivors in the stairwell could tell you what it sounded like as floors gave way above them. We engineers call that "loud." Glad I could help.
9mm rounds are what we rednecks call "supersonic".
That's quite a ways faster than 500mph.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=123193
Correct me if your engineerin' knowledgin' proves me wrong... otherwise you are what we rednecks call, "ignorant".
I think the key word in your post is "muzzle." As in, it doesn't maintain that speed. In fact, it slows down quite a bit. Before your 9mm round gets across the room, it loses enough velocity that it is travelling in the mid to high 500s (mph)...that's what people who know how to read call "pretty damn close to the same speed as a jet airplane."
Thank you. I am encouraged that not everyone on this post is clueless.
So no word yet from the third grader who is looking up the thermodynamics of jet fuel burning in the basements at 1500F for seven weeks?
I'm patient. I can wait.
:D
Do you know what the definition of "thermodynamics" is? I'll go ahead and wait while you Google it. Jet A flashes at around 100 and will sustain at about 400.
- Wendy Neu of Hugo Neu Schnitzer East (Hugo Neu Corporation) to the Empire State Chapter of ISRI (Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries) on November 28, 2001, at http://www.hugoneu.com/includes/pdfs/Speech-11-28-2001.pdf
- Ironworker talking about the “horseshoe” piece saved for possible memorial use, in “Relics from the Rubble,” A&E TV, 2002. Watch clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg#t=1m48s — Commenting on the piece of steel, Mark Wagner of Voorsanger Architects and Associates said, “Typically you’d have buckling and tearing on the tension side, but there’s no buckling at all.” (Update: In a recent interview with the 9/11 Memorial Museum, Wagner changed his story – or lied – saying heat was not a contributing factor! Touchy subject, I guess.)
http://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/molten-steel-extreme-temperatures-at-wtc/
Also:
Here is a very good site to see for a former structural firefighter. The good thing is I don't have to Bing thermodynamics, mainly because we're not talking about measuring energy efficiency in a closed system but also because I know for a fact that kerosene will not melt steel for seven weeks, as it needs oxygen to burn and then burns off very quickly.
There wasn't enough kerosene in all the planes flying in the air all day of 9/11 to have the temperature in the basements maintain molten steel for seven weeks. I'm sorry. There's just no way. Please have a look at these images and explain how that happened. I am quite curious.
http://moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com/
Perhaps the kind of pressure generated by a 110 story skyscraper collapsing? The study sample of such events is small. In fact it is WTC only.
Remember the key scientific terms: "heavy" "loud" "bigger"
a collapsed building maintains a 1500 degree fire for weeks? "scientific?"
I believe the word you intended to use was, "ignernt."
Just trying to help.
:D
Tell us more about the 747's as fast as 9mm bullets.
This comment actually made me laugh out loud. Those planes were definitely not traveling as fast as speeding bullets when they entered the towers. That much is obvious from the video footage.
You're lying eyes forget to account for the relative size of a BA767 and a 9 mm bullet. Let's think this through together. Now which one is bigger? Come on...don't be afraid to jump in with a guess. You can do it!
Yawn. I first came to Zerohedge a few weeks ago when it was performing an invaluable service by keeping the Fukushima catastrophe in the spotlight after the mainstream media, with its gnat-like attention span, had lost all interest.
But I now realize this site is mainly a hang out for consipiracy nutjobs, peddling every discredited conspiracy from NASA staging the moonlandings to Obama being born in Kenya.
Of course there is no point arguing with conspiracy theorists. It's like trying to argue with religioius fundamentalist. They just happen to know the 'real truth' and no rational discussion will change their mind. If a time machine existed that allowed these folks to actually go back and witness Barack Obama emerging from his mother's womb in Hawaii, they wouldn't believe their lying eyes - because the Elders of Zion have interfered with the space-time continuum, dontcha know.
The paradox, of course, is that consipiracy theorists usually ask us to accept an explanation that is vastly more improbable than the simple truth.
WTC building 7 collapsed as a consequence of a catostophic fire resulting from the terrorist attacks on the World Trace Center towers. Anyone who prefers to believe that it was deliberately detroyed by some sort of controlled demolition is just plain stupid. Beavis and Butthead-level stupid.
Well said. You are correct, there is no point in arguing with these conspiracy geeks. To a one, they are little people who lead little lives. Rather than face up to their own failures, they waste their lives looking for some boogie-man cloaked in grand schemes and conspiracies.
To all of you who are getting ready to trash me and junk my comment, yeah, I know: I'm a "troll" or a "sheeple." Typical juvenile, Mountain Dew-swilling, basement-dwelling thought process. Somebody disagrees so the first response is to call them a name. Then you'll accuse me of being playing right into "their" hands because, by golly, I'm just a big dummy. Whatever. The boldest amongst you will toss out some pathetic, veiled threat. I'm scared.
An illiterate 3rd grader with a thermodynamics text in his hand could debunk 90% of the crap spewed on this website. I know, I know, you saw Backdraft AND Ladder 49 so you are now a salty veteran firefighter. 'Course you still couldn't tell a Halligan from a Hurst, but who's counting?
But hey, how in the world can I be credible? I'm not pimping some shitty newsletter, website, or book.
Now why don't you kids go play and let the grown-ups talk?
So how would you explain the physics, then? Do you subscribe to the pancake theory? Does Building Seven bother you at all?
With your third-grade thermodynamics text, would you please explain how the "jet fuel" burned in the basements of WTC 1 and 2 for seven weeks at over 1500 degrees F?
Thanks in advance.
:D
I have no way of knowing what kinds of materials were buried in that heap, and I have no way of *knowing* (different than believing) at what temp those fires were burning. Am I supposed to buy the notion that some asshole with thermo telemetry equipment was crawling around in that heap? And try pouring water on a burning metal fire and see what happens. In many cases, it will cause the fire to burn hotter. Molten steel isn't going to remain molten after weeks on end sitting outdoors in the New York autumn. It just doesn't hold that many BTUs.
I used to be a structural firefighter. "Pancake theory??" It was a structural collapse. When computer geeks and theorists get together their real-world experience adds up to exactly zero. All the buildings bother me because they were all destroyed by Muslim terrorists. Why on Earth is that such a hard-to-believe notion?
Please explain the physical mechanism of this "structural collapse," structural firefighter. Keep in mind there is a high bar here, as no other steel-framed concrete building has ever failed catastrophically into its own footprint. There are many counter-examples, so I look forward to your response.
A structural collapse is pretty self-explanatory: The "structure" is subjected to more force than it is capable of resisting. There are basically two reasons a stable structure will fail: an increase in the force applied to it, or a decrease in the ability of the structure to resist the same amount of force. I think we can both agree that that is a logical, and accurate, statement, can we not?
The twin towers featured a small footprint relative to their height - a tall, skinny, structure. So the structure of the building didn't rely heavily on the bridging strength of its members, but, rather, relied on the structure to resist compression force. Can we agree on this, too?
When the planes hit the towers, there were two separate forces at work. First, an object weighing 250,000 pounds, travelling at (I don't know the speed, so let's go with a low estimate) 200 mph, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 11,000 gallons of Jet-A. Let's take these one at a time.
Momentum is mass x velocity. The mass is very important. It is the reason that a locomotive going 5 mph will mess up your car a lot more than a ping-pong ball going 20 mph...agreed? So we have an impact of immense proportions. As stated above, the WTC structure relied upon members designed for compression forces, not bridging strength. This impact, however, was perpendicular to those members. In essence, it was putting the equivalent of a bridging demand on a member not suited for that purpose. Think of a pencil. Standing on end it can withstand much more pressure downward than it could withstand pushing against the side of it.
More importantly was the fuel. We had 11,000 gallons of Jet A on board. Each gallon, when burned, releases 128,000 BTUs. The specific heat of steel (specific heat is the amount of heat it takes to raise the temp of the material 1 degree) is .12/lb. When that fuel lit up, 1.4 BILLION BTUs were released...and it takes just over 1/10 of one BTU to heat steel 1 degree. Many people get hung up on temperature when they should be looking at BTUs. Put a pan of water on the stove and turn it to high. At first, nothing happens. Slowly, the water will begin to heat up. Has the temperature of the burner increased? No. It takes time. Eventually, the water will boil. If you want to see something impressive, keep that pan on the stove for a long time. Eventually the water will boil off...then the pot will get REALLY hot...and eventually it will collapse. I've been to a fire where this very thing was the cause - a forgotten pot of boiling water. Another way to think of it is to consider how it is that on a 100 degree day a closed-up car can get to 130 degrees inside. Temperature is a snapshot in time...BTUs are the energy, and they accumulate.
Now we have weakened members. When they are weakened enough, they are no longer able to support the weight that is directly above - and pushing directly down upon them. The upper floor then falls onto the one below. If I put a nail on a board and set the hammer on the head of the nail, it does nothing. But if I lift the hammer a few inches and let it drop, it pushes the nail in. Since gravity always pushes an object straight down, that is the direction the upper floor fell. Remember, it isn't just the weight, it is the weight multiplied by the velocity. And every time the floors hit the one below, the weight multiplier increased. And every second it was falling, the velocity multiplier increased. During this time, there were no forces in play that would direct the object in any direction other than straight down.
I'll be happy to address anything else you wish to ask tomorrow morning.
"Eventually the water will boil off...then the pot will get REALLY hot...and eventually it will collapse."
is this why all those other steel high rises all around the world collapsed after their fire? And this one was burning for so incredibly long before it all collapsed directly into its footprint. Just like that spanish high rise that burned for over a day? And this was no ordinary building. It had an incredible steel inner structure built specifically to withstand both planes and fire. How quickly did those BTUs burn from that jet fuel. Pretty fast. How much of it spilled over onto tower 7?
"Since gravity always pushes an object straight down, that is the direction the upper floor fell"
did you forget your own your pencil strength lesson? How did the collapsing floors demolish the vertical strength of all those steel columns all the way down, all those floors where the steel was NOT supposedly weakend by fire? Is this why the video footage looks so similar to controlled demolition and so unlike a building collapsing from other forces? Is this why they immediately seized and destroyed all that steel evidence contrary to numerous criminal, federal safety and terrorist investigation laws?
Your theories need work . They don't even track with NIST's gyrations
I'm sorry, I guess I missed all those news stories about passenger jets crashing into other buildings. My point about a pot melting was the accumulation of heat.
"...how quickly did those BTUs burn from that jet fuel (?)"
Are you kidding me? BTUs don't burn. Have you ever been to school beyond 3rd grade? Do you think a BTU is like a Presto-log? And I don't have a clue as to what you mean by "spill over." Are you talking about Alphas? The little doo-dads (to use some parlance that is befitting your level of education) that will blister the paint off the next door neighbor's interior wall without raising the temp in their house by a single degree?
The steel supports on the lower floors were designed to support STATIC mass, not downwardly-accelerating mass. Mass x velocity...mass x velocity...(how many times do I need to repeat that before you will understand it?) Hammer? Nail? Did you bother to read that part?
There's no need to blame bankers for our financial woes. The fact that we have produced generation after generation of ill-informed, uneducated dolts who have nothing to offer besides victim-based, ill-conceived conspiracy theories pretty much sums up the reason we can't compete. While you're watching the X Files and digging around YouTube, people in India are actually learning math and science.
Barry, the laws of insults are a poor substitute for the laws of physics... and a poor substitute for hundreds of credible witnesses. I guess if we had all those steel columns to examine we could really ramp up this debate. Oh wait, they immediately removed them in violation of the law. What an inconvenience
FEMA's Executive Summary relays that much of the fuel in the planes (jet-grade kerosene) was consumed by the initial fireballs and the following few minutes of fire.
Frank A. De Martini: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it -- that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting -- it really does nothing to the screen netting."
Paul Goldberger: "Most skyscrapers are built on steel or concrete frames, which is a grid of columns and beams that goes all the way through the building. The World Trade Center was different. It was what engineers call a "tube structure". It was a very very strong mesh of steel that surrounded the exterior
Firefighter 1: "We started running... Floor by floor, it started popping out..."
Firefighter 2: "It was as if they had detonators."
Firefighter 1: "Yeah, detonators, yeah..."
Firefighter 2: "As if they planned to take down a building. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom!"
Firefighter 1: "All the way down. I was watching it and running."
- Naudet's Brother's film
News reporter: "At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust -- and then a fire marshall[sic] came in and said we had to leave because if there was a third explosion, this building might not last
Pat Dawson, NBC News: "Chief Albert Turi told me that he was here after the events that took place this morning. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place ... and then an hour after, there was another explosion in one of the towers here. So, according to his theory, he thinks there were actually devices that were planted in the building."
A 10-second collapse means the upper floors encountered no resistance from the undamaged floors beneath them.
Eric Hufschmid: "The floors of the World Trade Center towers were a three-dimensional mesh of steel beams. You have to keep in mind now, the floor is about an acre in size -- there are thousands of joints all over it. In order for the floor to fall down, thousands of joints would have to break simultaneously. So then, if you look at the speed at which this came down -- less th[a]n ten seconds -- you blink your eye and thousand of joints just popped somehow. The only way you can explain that is with explosives. They had to have had explosives placed all over the floors at the primary joints, and then that would explain how all of the joints broke at such a rapid rate.
The debris was crashing from one floor to the next. Debris cannot crash through steel and concrete floors as fast as it falls through the air -- and there was no slowing. Explosives had to be breaking the joints ahead of the falling rubble, which is why the top half starts off collapsing slowly and then it starts picking up speed..."
The calculation for a "pure" pancake collapse of 110 stories, with each floor pulverizing to get out of the way, is 96 seconds. In the real world, with the floors creating resistance, a pancake collapse would LOSE speed – never would it GAIN speed
William Rodriguez: "...and all of the sudden we heard an explosion. It was a huge explosion that came from under my feet, meaning that it came from the sub-levels between B2 and B3, and there was a huge explosion at the top of the building."
Voice of office worker at 1 Liberty Plaza: "What the heck was that?"
William Rodriguez: "You could hear the difference from the bottom and all the way through the top. The one from the top -- which was actually seconds after -- was heard very far away. The one at the basement was pretty loud, and you felt your actual feet moving with the floor. The tremor that is sent through the floors -- the walls cracked and the false ceiling totally collapsed, and that's when a person name Felipe David came running into our office saying, 'Explosion! Explosion! Explosion!' And when I saw him, he has all his skin pulled from under his armpits and missing pieces on his face."
Radio firefighter 1: "I got an eyewitness that said there was explosion on floor Seven Eight, Seven Eight ..."
Radio firefighter 2: "...Warren Street because of the secondary explosion. We've got numerous people covered with dust from the secondary explosion"
Radio firefighter 3: "...in the Tower...Ten Thirteen, Ten Thirteen..." (Code = Fire Marshall Needs Assistance, Urgent Assist by NYPD)
Firefighter 4 on radio: "We have a bigger explosion and what looks like a complete collapse -- surrounding the entire area."
Firefighter 5 on radio: "...involved in a secondary explosion
Finally Barry, please show me pictures of other buildings that collapsed like a pancake that look like the towers debris. Then tell us about their steel beam core construction
Go on, Davey, and follow your heart. There's no way that I, or anybody else, is going to be able to use REASON and LOGIC to dissuade you from a conclusion at which you arrived by EMOTION. You've read stuff on the internet, I've gotten my hands dirty. If telling yourself, me, and anybody else who will listen that you've got all the answers makes you feel better, I say go for it. Preach your religion to your heart's content, but don't be surprised when the only takers are Sheen and Rose O'Donnell (who, if you combine their high school credits, might almost qualify for a HS diploma).
b,
denial is not just a river in egypt
and you can swim in it all you want but
that will never make me wet. good luck to you
and enjoy your swim.
Nice factual comeback. It looks like you are your only witness. And you make the point that if information is on the internet it is unreliable? Your cards are showing
And yet they found two of the passports for the terrorists in the wreckage?
And NORAD was late in scrambling planes when the airliners went off course?
And Barry Jennings in WTC7 recounts that he experienced explosions in the building before either of the towers collapsed?
Even if what you say is true, what about all the other problems with the story?
TPOG
I'm with you Barry. But you are falling into the trap of trying to reason with these conspiracy wackos. There is no point. They are impervious to any rational argument. It's a dialog of the deaf. But good on you for trying!