Official story about collapse of the WTC 'bogus'

[Wedge]

Thanks. 9/11 is a horrible tragedy and the fact of the matter is that not nearly enough investigation has been performed. As a nation, we spent tremendous resources investigating a president's property selling. When the Columbia happened, there were three full scientific and legal investigations and as a result we know exactly who was at fault and even the very serial number of the part that failed that probably caused the accident. Those results are publicly available, I believe. Columbia was terrible, but not on the scale of 9/11... why can't we apply the same science to 9/11 as was applied to Columbia.

[Steff]

owie...

 

 

Interesting info there wedge..

[YASNY]

Thanks wedge. I'm no scientist, engineer or math major, but that sounded rather convincing to me.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Math is hard... Let's go SHOPPING!!

 

OK, with that out of the way, I'm going to try to support the official, non-conspircy version as to what brought the towers down (whether anybody knew the attack was coming is a separate conspiracy issue).

 

I don't know if the PhD guy's assertion that a jet fuel fire can't burn hot enough to melt steel is valid or not. If it's valid, why were the initial official explanations of the collapses not immediately brought under scrutiny?

 

If the fuel fires did burn hot enough to slag the steel beam supports, then what you have to factor into all that physics is the instantaneous disappearance of the weight-bearing structural integrity of the buildings at the point that a critical threshold temperature was reached. At that point, all of the concrete and non-supportive steel is nothing but weight to be pulled fown by gravity in the 9-10 seconds you would expect it to take.

Edited June 16, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[YASNY]

Math is hard... Let's go SHOPPING!![/i]

 

OK, with that out of the way, I'm going to try to support the official, non-conspircy version as to what brought the towers down (whether anybody knew the attack was coming is a separate conspiracy issue).

 

I don't know if the PhD guy's assertion that a jet fuel fire can't burn hot enough to melt steel is valid or not.  If it's valid, why were the initial official explanations of the collapses not immediately brought under scrutiny?

 

If the fuel fires did burn hot enough to slag the steel beam supports, then what you have to factor into all that physics is the instantaneous disappearance of the weight-bearing structural integrity of the buildings at the point that a critical threshold temperature was reached.  At that point, all of the concrete and non-supportive steel is nothing but weight to be pulled fown by gravity in the 9-10 seconds you would expect it to take.

 

Then again, if jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel girders then why wasn't it hot enough to melt a computer moniter sitting upon a filing cabinet at the edge of the hole in the Pentagon?

Edited June 16, 2005 by YASNY

[CanOfCorn]

There was a great Nova on this. They show it every once in awhile. Here is the link:

 

Nova Link

 

There's also a video explaning what they think happened. Click on the first link and scroll to the bottom.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Then again, if jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel girders then why wasn't it hot enough to melt a computer moniter sitting upon a filing cabinet at the edge of the hole in the Pentagon?

Well, there are still a lot of wierd and unanswered aspects about the Pentagon attack. Talk about food for conspiracies.

 

I do entirely concur with Wedge about the apalling lack of scrutiny and investigation post 9-11, compared to the level of investigation that Columbia got.

[YASNY]

Well, there are still a lot of wierd and unanswered aspects about the Pentagon attack.  Talk about food for conspiracies.

 

I do entirely concur with Wedge about the apalling lack of scrutiny and investigation post 9-11, compared to the level of investigation that Columbia got.

 

"They" investigate what "they" want to investigate, and ignore the rest. The Kennedy assasination and 9/11 come to mind immediately.

[Flash Tizzle]

so in this case, the total falling time is about 10.7 seconds. As you introduce more slabs, the falling time should increase (this would take a lot of calculus, maybe if I have time to look at it later, I will). Also... we're assuming the tower is giving no resistance as it collapse, which it should be doing. That would introduce more of a collapse time.

 

These are just simple calculations, that I feel introduce an element of doubt to the fact that the WTC towers collapsed purely because of the impact of the planes. There is enough evidence to warrant full scale scientific investigation and simulation, that I'm not sure has been done.

 

The steel truss construction (support of building lying on outside structure) created a domino effect once the floors hit by the planes could no longer support themselves, or the floors above.

 

In WTC 2, the tower first to collapse yet second to be struck, fell first due to the severity (and ideal location) at which the terrorists targeted. Upon the crucial moments before collapse, it had been obvious to observers the building appeared to be noticeably leaning. The jetliner fuel obviously compromised the foundation of the several floors covering the impact. Once the steel truss' failed, which was inevitable, the almost professional demolition was completed. Essentially, a 30 story building fell upon a 80 story base. I wouldn't expect much resistance.

 

WTC 1 held up longer, yet even the hight of the strike could not save the tower. Similar to it's fallen twin, the weakening of the initial impact floor weakened the structure and dropped a 10 story building upon a 100 story base. To me, it speaks more to the poor construction of the building than a conspiracy. As stated before, the strength of the building lied on its outside shell. Once it gave way, there was no stopping the debris downfall.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Flash Tizzle

[Wedge]

I don't have anything to say about any conspiracy. The math I posted earlier could be entirely errouneous, too. My biggest beef is that there was no extensive forensic study of the wreckage of the WTC (the wreckage was quickly sold as scrap to India and China), certainly nothing on the scale of that such an attack (an attack on a civilian target of this scale is an act of war) merits. Couple this with the fact that key members of the government have admitted to failing to properly handle information attacks, there needs to be a scientific investigation of at least the scale of the Columbia and a legal/political/military investigation of at least the scale of Whitewater. Instead, we get a weak investigation full of "soft-ball" questions.

 

The WTC may have been exactly what it seems, but we can't know that for sure. Nobody has been asking the right questions through the right avenues.

[Flash Tizzle]

Then again, if jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel girders then why wasn't it hot enough to melt a computer moniter sitting upon a filing cabinet at the edge of the hole in the Pentagon?

 

That computer just happened to be in the right place. The hole you're referring to, IIRC, was caused by one of the engine pieces flying through the wall. It's possible the jet engine fuel didn't spray in that direction. Remember, the Pentagon is a heavily layered building, and the area at which the plane struck had been renovated.

 

I just don't believe there's a massive conspriacy with 9/11 in any of the cities or events which took place. Whether it be a military jet shooting down Flight 93, a missle/car bomb striking the Pentagon, or a controlled demolition of both WTC towers.

 

Far as the demolition theory, if someone implanted explosives, why didn't they go off immediately upon the airplane strike? Or sometime before their eventual collapse fifty minutes later? It must have been lucky for government agents to pick the right location to install explosives. Because the terrorists happened to strike the building at the exact places both towers began their collapse. Unless you want to believe United and American Airlines had some sort of homing devices guiding them into the desired spots. Which is yet another conspiracy.

[jackie hayes]

Link to a Popular Mechanics article analyzing a bunch of these...I don't know, I don't even think they qualify as "ideas". Basic conclusion, they're all crap, w/ much dishonesty used to spread the disinformation. But hey, what do specialists, scientists, and engineers really have on self fancying Clancy crazies, right?

[CanOfCorn]

Link to a Popular Mechanics article analyzing a bunch of these...I don't know, I don't even think they qualify as "ideas".  Basic conclusion, they're all crap, w/ much dishonesty used to spread the disinformation.  But hey, what do specialists, scientists, and engineers really have on self fancying Clancy crazies, right?

 

That was fascinating. But I could see how people could read into the debunking as government brainwashing.

 

/Puts on tin foil fedora.

[KipWellsFan]

Link to a Popular Mechanics article analyzing a bunch of these...I don't know, I don't even think they qualify as "ideas".  Basic conclusion, they're all crap, w/ much dishonesty used to spread the disinformation.  But hey, what do specialists, scientists, and engineers really have on self fancying Clancy crazies, right?

 

Good read but didn't even reply to this at all

 

In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

 

I guess they just think they never "pulled it"

 

edit: also one of those pictures shows one of the towers coming down and it certainly wasn't coming straight down.

Edited June 16, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[Flash Tizzle]

Good read but didn't even reply to this at all

I guess they just think they never "pulled it"

 

edit: also one of those pictures shows one of the towers coming down and it certainly wasn't coming straight down.

 

WTC 7 entire south structure received heavy damage in the collapse of both towers. Rather than risk people working around it, he suggested it would have been the best option to demolish the building. I agree. Either it was going down on its own, or due to controlled explosives.

 

Which makes you wonder what would have happened if one, or perhaps both, Twin Towers hadn't of collapsed. It would have been impossible to rescue anyone with a 1400 ft tower on the brink of destruction right next to you. IMO, the WTC Tower 2 would have been demolished no matter what. The damage was too extensive and was at such a pivotal point at the tower to risk rebuilding.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Flash Tizzle

[jackie hayes]

WTC 7 entire south structure received heavy damage in the collapse of both towers. Rather than risk people working around it, he suggested it would have been the best option to demolish the building. I agree.  Either it was going down on its own, or due to controlled explosives.

 

Which makes you wonder what would have happened if one, or perhaps both, Twin Towers hadn't of collapsed.  It would have been impossible to rescue anyone with a  1400 ft tower on the brink of destruction right next to you. IMO, the WTC Tower 2 would have been demolished no matter what. The damage was too extensive and was at such a pivotal point at the tower to risk rebuilding.

I don't believe it would have been possible to install the explosives for a controlled collapse from the outside, nor could people have gone inside w/ the fire. (I'm open to correction, I have no expertise in these matters.) So I think Kip is making the following argument: WTC 7 was demolished, but a demolition could not have been set up. Therefore the explosives must have been in place before 9/11 as part of the government's plan to create a war. One problem is, what excuse was to be made for the building's collapse? Certainly no plane was going to be flown into it.

 

The bigger problem is that there is not one credible source for any of this sick s***. This thread started w/ some no-name economist making claims about engineering and physics. Wait, wait, let me guess -- the U.S. government pays off every single competent, well-respected engineer in the world, so this is the best we could do. Is that it? Bill Frist was ten thousand times more qualified to pronounce on Terri Schiavo. If you have no credible source, don't bring it up at all. This is just disgusting.

[KipWellsFan]

I'm not making an argument.

[jackie hayes]

I'm not making an argument.

Is that at least the suggestion that you're floating, if not arguing? B/c that's what I take away from the conspiracy websites that discuss this Silverstein quote. And then what is your position on all this conspiracy garbage?

 

Even if it's not really Dante, I like the "hottest places in hell" maxim. On 9/11 and the reaction, I side firmly w/ the Bush administration. As much as I would like to see the Bushies out of office, they did right here (at least in the immediate reaction). Theories like these sound like very crass attempts to cash in on 9/11 by the left -- by claiming that Bush actually conspired to murder thousands of people in order to pass something like the Patriot Act. It's disgusting and baseless and no more worthy of mention than any random Area 51 X Files fan post. A zero.

[KipWellsFan]

Is that at least the suggestion that you're floating, if not arguing?  B/c that's what I take away from the conspiracy websites that discuss this Silverstein quote.  And then what is your position on all this conspiracy garbage?

 

Even if it's not really Dante, I like the "hottest places in hell" maxim.  On 9/11 and the reaction, I side firmly w/ the Bush administration.  As much as I would like to see the Bushies out of office, they did right here (at least in the immediate reaction).  Theories like these sound like very crass attempts to cash in on 9/11 by the left -- by claiming that Bush actually conspired to murder thousands of people in order to pass something like the Patriot Act.  It's disgusting and baseless and no more worthy of mention than any random Area 51 X Files fan post.  A zero.

 

I'd merely say it's a slight possibility that I won't completely dispel. There are obvious ways the Bush administration had earned criticism, ways that are in no way created through conspiracy theories.

 

Also I think many believe it wasn't Bush or his administration but a group other than the over-hyped Al-Qaeda responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Edited June 17, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[jackie hayes]

I'd merely say it's a slight possibility that I won't completely dispel.  There are obvious ways the Bush administration had earned criticism, ways that are in no way created through conspiracy theories.

 

Also I think many believe it wasn't Bush or his administration but a group other than the over-hyped Al-Qaeda responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Even after the OBL tape? That plus everything else, I'm pretty convinced.

[KipWellsFan]

Even after the OBL tape?  That plus everything else, I'm pretty convinced.

 

Are you talking about where he makes a hand gesture about the buildings falling and having a chuckle? That's a good point but I'm sure many in that whole "death to America" crowd were quite happy, with their whole dancing on the streets thing. All the conspiracies are probably only that, but the opportunism that the Bush adminstration has shown after the attacks forces some to question 9/11, sadly, naturally.

[jackie hayes]

Are you talking about where he makes a hand gesture about the buildings falling and having a chuckle?  That's a good point but I'm sure many in that whole "death to America" crowd were quite happy, with their whole dancing on the streets thing.  All the conspiracies are probably only that, but the opportunism that the Bush adminstration has shown after the attacks forces some to question 9/11, sadly, naturally.

It was more than that, c'mon, you have to be fair to be credible. He talks explicitly about how the execution exceeded what they had hoped for. A part of the tape:

UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

From this CNN transcript.

 

NOTHING "forces" anyone to suspect that the Bush administration conspired to murder thousands. If someone ignores the evidence and supports bad reasoning, that's an idiot, no matter how the tragedy was used (wrongly, for both the Patriot Act and Iraq).

 

There's an episode of Will & Grace, a while back, where Karen makes an accusation, adding something like 'How do I know that? Because I really, really think so.' Same logic here, and no less absurd.

[KipWellsFan]

That's just all I remember about it, thanks for the link.

 

But I'll probably never be 100% sure about the circumstances around 9/11 just like I can't be 100% sure that Bill Clinton didn't rape Hillary.

 

lol

http://leverkuhn.redstate.org/story/2005/6/13/23835/8532

[kapkomet]

That's just all I remember about it, thanks for the link.

 

But I'll probably never be 100% sure about the circumstances around 9/11 just like I can't be 100% sure that Bill Clinton didn't rape Hillary.

 

lol

http://leverkuhn.redstate.org/story/2005/6/13/23835/8532

:o

 

That's just f***ing wrong. That bastard who reported this needs to rot in hell, and should be sued for it.

 

If f***ing Hannity or Limbaugh pick up on this, I swear, I will personally launch into a crusade to tell everyone I know to NOT listen to them. This is below the belt.

[KipWellsFan]

:o

 

That's just f***ing wrong.  That bastard who reported this needs to rot in hell, and should be sued for it.

 

If f***ing Hannity or Limbaugh pick up on this, I swear, I will personally launch into a crusade to tell everyone I know to NOT listen to them.  This is below the belt.

 

That's why I kind of hope Hillary doesn't run for Prez. Considering how much mud was slinged at 2 pretty clean guys like Kerry and McCain I can't imagine how much Hillary would face.