9/11: The WTC Collapses

[MaggieD]

is it logical that 3 buildings would be totally destroyed, while other buildings in the same complex were damaged but not destroyed? Forensics 101 .... anything that is totally destroyed, probably got that way because somebody intended for it to happen like that.

That's not Forensics 101.

That's Conspiracy Theories 101.

 

[SanderO]

is it logical that 3 buildings would be totally destroyed, while other buildings in the same complex were damaged but not destroyed? Forensics 101 .... anything that is totally destroyed, probably got that way because somebody intended for it to happen like that.

nonsense.

 

[Thoreau72]

That's not Forensics 101.

That's Conspiracy Theories 101.

Roger that! It's not Forensics because proper forensic procedures were not practiced at WTC, and Fire Engineering Magazine was pointing that out very quickly.

Forensic evidence was gathered up and shipped out before any meaningful and proper investigation could be conducted to determine just what happened, and how 3 buildings meeting all the fire code laws could collapse from fires in a small part of the building.

 

[Quag]

Roger that! It's not Forensics because proper forensic procedures were not practiced at WTC, and Fire Engineering Magazine was pointing that out very quickly.

Forensic evidence was gathered up and shipped out before any meaningful and proper investigation could be conducted to determine just what happened, and how 3 buildings meeting all the fire code laws could collapse from fires in a small part of the building.

Umm HD you forget the impacts? Of course you do because that doesn't fit your model. As for the WTC7 hmm how long did it burn uncontrolled for? Nah that couldn't have been a factor!
Pathetic attempts by truthers to change the facts to suit their fantasy will never work. IF ther e was an acual inside job truthers wouldn't have to resort to lies and distortions to promote their nonsense. The fact that they do is very telling.

 

[Thoreau72]

Sure Quagissimo, Fire Engineering Magazine was wrong and your gullible and corrupted thought processes are right. Yeah, that's the ticket. :lamo

 

[RogueWarrior]

Roger that! It's not Forensics because proper forensic procedures were not practiced at WTC, and Fire Engineering Magazine was pointing that out very quickly.

Forensic evidence was gathered up and shipped out before any meaningful and proper investigation could be conducted to determine just what happened, and how 3 buildings meeting all the fire code laws could collapse from fires in a small part of the building.

A normal highrise fire usually does start in a very small area of a building. This, in no sense of the word, was a normal fire. Even arsonists use at most 5 gallons of accelerant. This was 10 000 gallons of accelerant.
Fire protection measures like sprinklers and spray on retardants can only slow down steel structural failure by thermal stress if they have not been damaged by the impact of a 300 000 lb aircraft flying full throttle.
Could a sprinkler system have any appreciable effect on a multi thousand gallon kerosene fire? Was the system even working after the impact?

Please notice I used the words 'steel structural failure' and not 'melting steel.' Structural steel only needs to be heated to 400-500 deg. to reduce its strength by half.

Engineers say the WTC towers were marvels of engineering and had even been designed to withstand a 707 impact. Funny thing about engineers, they also predicted that the Titanic was unsinkable.

 

[Menard_K]

A normal highrise fire usually does start in a very small area of a building. This, in no sense of the word, was a normal fire. Even arsonists use at most 5 gallons of accelerant. This was 10 000 gallons of accelerant.
Fire protection measures like sprinklers and spray on retardants can only slow down steel structural failure by thermal stress if they have not been damaged by the impact of a 300 000 lb aircraft flying full throttle.
Could a sprinkler system have any appreciable effect on a multi thousand gallon kerosene fire? Was the system even working after the impact?

Please notice I used the words 'steel structural failure' and not 'melting steel.' Structural steel only needs to be heated to 400-500 deg. to reduce its strength by half.

Engineers say the WTC towers were marvels of engineering and had even been designed to withstand a 707 impact. Funny thing about engineers, they also predicted that the Titanic was unsinkable.

There is very definitely a lack of a coherent story here.
Some sources will say that the vast majority of the Jet Fuel, burned off
in the initial few seconds of fire-ball, right after the "aircraft impact"
and also there is evidence of melted iron ( & other materials ) in the
dust that covered lower Manhattan. tiny spheres that can only happen
if the metal were to have been melted and then dispersed by some force
( explosion ...... or? ) The evidence doesn't clearly point in one direction exclusively
because there are too many factions at work, some with a definite agenda. ( or cover-up ..... )

This case is far from closed.

 

[Quag]

There is very definitely a lack of a coherent story here.
Some sources will say that the vast majority of the Jet Fuel, burned off
in the initial few seconds of fire-ball, right after the "aircraft impact"
and also there is evidence of melted iron ( & other materials ) in the
dust that covered lower Manhattan. tiny spheres that can only happen
if the metal were to have been melted and then dispersed by some force
( explosion ...... or? ) The evidence doesn't clearly point in one direction exclusively
because there are too many factions at work, some with a definite agenda. ( or cover-up ..... )

This case is far from closed.

Nope the case is closed it was the impacts and fires that caused the collapses only truthers who refuse to acknowledge reality ever claim otherwise.

 

[RogueWarrior]

There is very definitely a lack of a coherent story here.
Some sources will say that the vast majority of the Jet Fuel, burned off
in the initial few seconds of fire-ball, right after the "aircraft impact"
and also there is evidence of melted iron ( & other materials ) in the
dust that covered lower Manhattan. tiny spheres that can only happen
if the metal were to have been melted and then dispersed by some force
( explosion ...... or? ) The evidence doesn't clearly point in one direction exclusively
because there are too many factions at work, some with a definite agenda. ( or cover-up ..... )

This case is far from closed.

There is absolutely no physical way for 10 000 gallons to burn off in seconds.

 

[Thoreau72]

There is absolutely no physical way for 10 000 gallons to burn off in seconds.

Firstly, you do not know it was 10,000 gallons. Nobody has even attempted to accurately quantify it, but 10,000 is a happy number that everybody likes to use.

Secondly, the vast bulk of the jetfuel, whatever the quantity, was consumed in the fireball. Liquids quickly decelerated from350 knots to 0 are atomized. It there is a source of flame present, that atomized fuel ignites and forms a fireball. It's common, and recorded on film.

Thirdly, as pointed out by Kevin Ryan who worked for Underwriters Laboratory at the time but was fired for speaking the obvious truth, the towers met the NYC fire code, and so did the office furniture within. As Ryan mentioned before he was fired, the fires observed were not nearly high enough in temperature to weaken the steel.

Other high rise fires that have burned far more intensely and for much longer periods of time confirm that general fact.

OMG, these NISTIAN cult followers believe all manner of nonsense, as long as political appointees lay it out for them.

 

[Quag]

Firstly, you do not know it was 10,000 gallons. Nobody has even attempted to accurately quantify it, but 10,000 is a happy number that everybody likes to use.

Secondly, the vast bulk of the jetfuel, whatever the quantity, was consumed in the fireball. Liquids quickly decelerated from350 knots to 0 are atomized. It there is a source of flame present, that atomized fuel ignites and forms a fireball. It's common, and recorded on film.

Thirdly, as pointed out by Kevin Ryan who worked for Underwriters Laboratory at the time but was fired for speaking the obvious truth, the towers met the NYC fire code, and so did the office furniture within. As Ryan mentioned before he was fired, the fires observed were not nearly high enough in temperature to weaken the steel.

Other high rise fires that have burned far more intensely and for much longer periods of time confirm that general fact.

OMG, these NISTIAN cult followers believe all manner of nonsense, as long as political appointees lay it out for them.

Total BS again from HD who will believe any lies he is told if it supports his fantasy.

 

[Thoreau72]

Total BS again from HD who will believe any lies he is told if it supports his fantasy.

I hope RW will return to discuss the phenomenon of modern buildings burning all night and remaining standing, to open again after repairs.

 

[Quag]

I hope RW will return to discuss the phenomenon of modern buildings burning all night and remaining standing, to open again after repairs.

I hope one day you will rejoin reality, well honestly I don't really care.

 

[Menard_K]

indulge my curiosity if you will ....
It was stated that WTC7 was built above a utility sub-station and in
fact there were allegedly large power transformers actually inside the building,
now from just walking by utility sub-stations, one hears a distinct hum from the
transformers, and I wonder was there an audible hum in the building from the
utility sub-station? anyone know of any info available on this subject? .... or?

 

[RogueWarrior]

I hope RW will return to discuss the phenomenon of modern buildings burning all night and remaining standing, to open again after repairs.

Sorry got caught up in other things. I had a response all type and ready then the power went out.

You dispute 10 000 gallons.
Airlines keep a very very close eye on fuel loads for their aircraft. They do not want to be flying around fuel as cargo for free.
So we have a very very good idea about how much fuel was in the planes at impact (unless the flying geniuses accidentally dumped fuel).

secondly Some of the fuel would atomize, that is a given. There is no way that all of it atomized.

thirdly did the tower meet the plane-impact-followed-by-fire fire code? because we are not talking just fire here.

I would have to look each skyscraper fire individually to compare with this case. iirc :lol: there have only been 2 skyscrapers hit by modern wide body aircraft and both fell down.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I would have to look each skyscraper fire individually to compare with this case. iirc :lol: there have only been 2 skyscrapers hit by modern wide body aircraft and both fell down.

And if airliner impacts and fire did it, shouldn't engineering schools be able to model it in 12 years?

How many schools even discuss the events on an official level?

But we don't even have accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

psik

 

[mike2810]

And if airliner impacts and fire did it, shouldn't engineering schools be able to model it in 12 years?

How many schools even discuss the events on an official level?

But we don't even have accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

psik

Any model that is done, the likes of you would say you don't know that joint failed at that particular time.

The collapse do to damage and fire is more likely that thermite/mininukes. etc.

So how did the towers fail? What caused it in your opinion?

 

[RogueWarrior]

The most compelling model is that the heat weakened the floor trusses which sagged. The sagging trusses pulled the outer columns out of plumb. Enough columns out of plumb....

 

[psikeyhackr]

The most compelling model is that the heat weakened the floor trusses which sagged. The sagging trusses pulled the outer columns out of plumb. Enough columns out of plumb....

The NIST had Underwriters Laboratories test 4 sections of concrete and floor trusses in furnaces for two hours.

It is in the NIST report. If that could happen then it could be tested and verified.

psik

 

[Thoreau72]

Sorry got caught up in other things. I had a response all type and ready then the power went out.

You dispute 10 000 gallons.
Airlines keep a very very close eye on fuel loads for their aircraft. They do not want to be flying around fuel as cargo for free.
So we have a very very good idea about how much fuel was in the planes at impact (unless the flying geniuses accidentally dumped fuel).

secondly Some of the fuel would atomize, that is a given. There is no way that all of it atomized.

thirdly did the tower meet the plane-impact-followed-by-fire fire code? because we are not talking just fire here.

I would have to look each skyscraper fire individually to compare with this case. iirc :lol: there have only been 2 skyscrapers hit by modern wide body aircraft and both fell down.

Maybe you can show me where any fueling records have been provided as to the fuel onboard any of the aircraft. I've looked all over for that information for years, but have not seen it anywhere. My point is that 10000 gallons is an assumption, nothing more. It is probably reasonably accurate, but it is an assumption.

How do you know how much was consumed in the fireball?

The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, and the engineers and architects are on record stating that. Indeed, they DID withstand the impacts. Besides the landing gear assemblies and the engines, the aluminum airframes were shredded by the steel structures. In the second case, one of the engines and landing gear piece penetrated the buildings and were found blocks away.

Jetfuel and office furniture fires and gravity, the explanation offered by NIST could not have caused all the things that we saw. That is an absurd theory that does not comport with reality.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Maybe you can show me where any fueling records have been provided as to the fuel onboard any of the aircraft. I've looked all over for that information for years, but have not seen it anywhere. My point is that 10000 gallons is an assumption, nothing more. It is probably reasonably accurate, but it is an assumption.

How do you know how much was consumed in the fireball?

The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, and the engineers and architects are on record stating that. Indeed, they DID withstand the impacts. Besides the landing gear assemblies and the engines, the aluminum airframes were shredded by the steel structures. In the second case, one of the engines and landing gear piece penetrated the buildings and were found blocks away.

Jetfuel and office furniture fires and gravity, the explanation offered by NIST could not have caused all the things that we saw. That is an absurd theory that does not comport with reality.

The question is how do YOU know how much was consumed in the fire ball!
You stated unequivocally that all the fuel atomized and consumed for the fireball. Where is the justification for that?
Did all the airplane parts make it through the building? Why would you expect all the fuel to make it through? You can't have it both ways.

Yes the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. The Titanic was supposedly unsinkable. At least that is what their engineers said. Obviously they were both wrong.

Gravity powers the universe so pulling down a building is small potahtoes. Plane impact, jet fuel and gravity. Trifecta

What did you think of the pictures of the walls buckling inwards?

 

[RogueWarrior]

The NIST had Underwriters Laboratories test 4 sections of concrete and floor trusses in furnaces for two hours.

It is in the NIST report. If that could happen then it could be tested and verified.

psik

Where in the report? Link please!

 

[psikeyhackr]

Where in the report? Link please!

Have you ever heard of Google search?

Try

WTC floor furnace truss

I am supposed to care what you say is incorrect when you can't figure out a search. LOL

psik

 

[Bodi]

I wonder where you purchased your common sense?

Mine tells me that if 1700 some odd architects & engineers have some serious questions, and if the head of Fire Engineering magazine had some serious questions back in 2002, then maybe there is something to it.

0.0017% perhaps? 1,700 sounds pretty impressive until you realise that there are untold hundreds of thousands of them, to millions.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Have you ever heard of Google search?

Try

WTC floor furnace truss

I am supposed to care what you say is incorrect when you can't figure out a search. LOL

psik

And if I happen to choose the wrong info, build a wonderful rebuttal only to have you say:' but that is not the one I meant!'
Not how it works psikey. Your assertion so your burden to provide evidence.
Unreasonable for me to have to guess which information you say is evidence for your position.