Hot enough if thermate was present.

Not if the government theory applies.

Support was "gone" non-symmetrically. So how did symmetrical collapse ensue? In three cases...

I don't care if a fucking airplaine hit the buildings - it wouldn't create heat enough to melt, soften or weaken steel.

You saw fireballs... where? OUTSIDE the buildings. And flames/fire for an hour at most on a few floors. Nothing to eradicate support for 100 floors in their entirety.

You're a smart guy man, use your reason.

/

You keep saying it was symmetrical, and it wasn't. It looks symmetrical thanks to the distance the various cameras were away from the WTC. If you were far away, it would like they they fell straight down. If you were right beside it, it would be falling in a chaotic mess all around you in all different directions. A "Symmetrical collapse" is a perceived notion only.


If it were ONLY the jet fuel that was burning, maybe you're right, but other materials including gasses were burning as well. Jet fuel can burn at temps up to 980 degrees celcius. The temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius.

Don't forget too that there was lots of damage to the building too. Damage + heat + time weakend a couple of beams (maybe only one, who knows) which caused it to bend, which caused more weight on those beams, which then bent even more, until the collapse.

Yes, but they originated inside the buildings. Why is that even a concern?

On the contrary, there is LOTS to eradicate the total destruction of WTC.

You too...!

Dude : You know I'm no engineer or scientist, but I have more than a passing interest in science, technology, physics and even astrophysics. Everything I have seen of ever video of the event clearly points to nothing more than fire and damage caused by planes which caused the collapse.

I have seen the side-by-side video of WTC and a controlled demolition of some building. They look similar for sure and the comparison is quite interesting, but its only interesting for a few minutes. All it takes as a little zooming in onto the details of the WTC collapse to see that it was very different from a controlled demolition.

So it was hot enough to melt steel only if your theory was correct, but not when we apply the government theory.

You sat there and you argued that it wasn't hot enough. NOW your telling us it was more than hot enough. You don't believe the government theory, but when it's your theory it was plenty hot enough.

Simple. Any third grader can explain it with their blocks. Build a tower of blocks, quickly remove an entire "floor" of blocks, and the the next row (floor) of blocks falls straight down. In other words, the blocks would fall down on each other.

I saw fireballs and an hour long fire. We all did. The fireballs were so big that they traveled down ninety floors and exploded in the lobby.

You don't get it, do you?

The core on one floor failed, passing the weight of the floor above it to the outer columns - of which thirty percent was destroyed. An hour long fire weakened outer columns until they were unable to support the weight above it. Note that columns on multiple floors were missing and others damaged. There was no way the tower could continue to support itself.

This like third grade blocks here. Build a tower, remove one of the supports, and the tower falls down. A number of the outer columns were destroyed, others damaged, the core was destroyed, and when the weight was passed over to the outer columns... Eventually they gave way.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz

14Fitty conspiracy theories:pimp

Good point sperbonzo, I'm coming round to your way of thinking :winkwink:

Now that we know how the Twin Towers came down, what about Building 7? :upsidedow

http://i2.listal.com/image/3170297/500full.jpg

Two huge towers - millions of tons of steel and concrete and what not - fell at the foot of WTC7. It was like an earthquake. Setting aside the fact that the building was on fire for hours, and damaged, it'a amazing any of the buildings are remained standing.

No no, that makes sense. Something conspiracy nuts won't accept.

Sorry Rochard, but it is completely unrealistic that it would have caused any kind of collapse for WTC7, some damage for sure, but not a collapse

Actually that's not correct according to too much video and eyewitness testimony. If you don't see symmetry and global obliteration there, you're not watching enough videos.

You are partially correct about the temperature rate of the conversion. However, you have to understand these temperatures have to be sustained for hours - usually 3 hours minimum - before those states are achieved.

Regardless of the magnitude of the damage, the chances of it being universally equal and global at the rate signified by the actual mechanics of the crash in two separate instances are absolutely beyond the possibility of chance or randomness.
[/quote]

Well then even on an empirical basis, compared to skyscraper fires of other buildings as well as those in the past of the WTC - which caused them to guard against fire propagation since - should tell you that the "event" bears no resemblance to to the expected consequences and results.

You should understand that even actually planned control demolitions don't fall as well in many instances as WTC 7 did. Do some research.

Correct. From what I saw, and learned through research, the buildings could only have fallen the way they did via induced weaknesses at strategic points throughout its structure....

Obviously, I was referring to the fact that the government theory can't account for the destruction with its heat/temperature conjectures.

So counter to physics, a block would be somehow powerful and full of enough kinetic energy to completely obliterate the seven or eight blocks beneath it?

The fireballs were conjectured. We saw much more complete fires in other buldings which didn't touch the steel structures - which is what they're made for.

None of the cores of any floor failed. Do some reading. Where do you get any cores failed?!?

Non of the outer columns were weakened. Read up on it. Some, according to the NIST theory, were "pulled in" by some of the lateral support being weakened by the crash. That's it.

Some columns on one of four sides were compromised, yes. Total global symmetrical collapse could not ensue from this.

The towers were made to suffer catastrophic damage and support compromise from multiple sides and even commercial airliner impacts. How do you validate your statement?

The building was not the equivalent of third grade wooden blocks.

If the design was so weak that removing "one of the supports and the tower falls down" was possible, it wouldn't have been built.

The core was not destroyed. The core was likely not even damaged. Read it up.

The outer columns cross-supported each other and were bolstered by undamaged core columns. Eventually, the fire should have gone out and left a steel armature, not crushed every last bit of material to granular substance.

:D

Sure it was. Remove the support of the floor below, and all hell breaks loose.

But it wasn't "one of the supports" that was removed. It was dozens.

Currently Sober still likes poo.

With those who are still clinging onto the official 9/11 story at this advanced stage, I believe the best approach to convert them would be challenge the trust they have for Western authority, if that trust can be damaged, then they will be able to reconsider 9/11 in an open fashion, instead of feeling that they already know the conclusion before they've started investigating

"clinging to the official story"?

"trust for western authority"?

Really? So if someone doesn't agree with your objective, well reasoned opinion based solely on the evidence (according to you), then a person is "clinging to the official story"?

This is the choice? Any party in this discussion/debate can only be delusional or brainwashed?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I don't believe in "Western authority". Or the media. Or our government.

For example, I don't believe JFK died the way he died. I question the Gulf Of Tonkin, Bay Of Pigs, or the USS Liberty incident. I bet half of what our government tells us is far from the truth. But that doesn't mean I have to question everything I'm told.

A fucking airliner hit a skyscraper that is 200 feet wide - and hollow. That in itself is the only fact you need to know.

Yes, we're all sheep and brainwashed because we don't believe the ridiculous claims of the conspiracy nuts.
Holograms, missiles, bombs, 1000's of people involved, planes dissapearing, etc. Believe it or you = sheep.

You are mind controlled if you believe a group of muslim terrorists flew into a tower which resulted in the collapse of that tower. Because that is IMPOSSIBLE you know! Any other totally insane theory ofcourse is possible, as long it's a secret conspiracy by the government.

You are clearly brainwashed.
Don't you know the truth is out there! It's the biggest secret conspiracy in the history of civilization but it's right there on Youtube.

I doubt anything that is one-sixth the mass of another object would be able to crush it down so fast and perfectly, taking out the basements somehow on the way down. Certainly the area above the floor or floors that give would collapse down - but it would stop due to the uncompromised majority of the structure beneath being intact, or it would topple since the chances of a symmetrical and simultaneous failure of all joints and support for that one floor is pretty slim to impossible.

Actually it was about three dozen, say 35 perimeter columns, out of 235 perimeter columns, that were severed or critically damaged. The building wasn't so badly built that removing between 7 and 15% of its structural support would completely annihilate the remaining 85% that was for all intents and purposes, especially considering the relatively low temperatures hypothesized by the official theory, structurally intact.

:D

The WTC was far from hollow - in fact it was the complete opposite, with one of the most solid core support structures in building history.

The "tube within a tube" description is deceptive at best.

:D

You have it backwards. It wasn't an object one sixth crushing something six time larger. The floors above were six times heavier than the floor below it could support. Thus, it collapsed.

So what your saying is that each side had 58 columns, and nearly half of one side was destroyed. That's before the fire PLUS the stress of the weight above it.

I mean, seriously, take a look at this picture? How in the world do you expect that not to collapse?

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/fig-1-6.jpg

Compared to other buildings, it was rather hollow. It was the other perimeter and the inner core that supported the building, as opposed to other buildings that have support throughout each floor.

There was physically no support from the inner core to the outer wall:

http://willyloman.files.wordpress.co...tc_office1.jpg

It's pretty simple: A huge airplane destroyed an entire side of perimeter support across ten floors, damaged the core, and further fire weakened it.

From wikipedia:

After the planes hit the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards.

The building fell because a fucking airplane destroyed a large percentage of the support and the building was unable to support it's own weight.

It's pretty simple. Take out 70 percent of my load bearing walls on one side of my house, the second floor is coming down.

... and crushed one or a few weakened floors. What about the 70 or 80 structurally sound, unheated floors below those? Where was the resistance? How did they each give out in about one-tenth of a second each?

Half of one side, meaning one-eighth of the support of a floor or a few floors. Even if it was a whole side that was completely eradicated, the buildings were designed to take such an impact, even a couple such impacts each.

So one side out of four is compromised, the weight above drives down, and all four sides of all compromised floors and all four sides of all the uncompromised floors below give out all at once? That's not even logical.

Your one-side of four theory would indicate the top-dropping section would tilt to one side and topple, relieving the other three sides of the weight load and thus not leading to global collapse.

A form of failure would be logical if it followed the path of least resistance. However the failure went down vertically through the path of most resistance.

The floors did not float in mid-air - there was plenty of truss support above and below each floor. In fact the government story holds that it was these cross supports weakening and being strong enough to pull in the perimeter support that somehow caused all the cross supports across all four sides on all 80 floors below to give out in 1/10th of a second each.

On top of this ridiculous contention, the increasingly thickened core column support also disappeared in dust. If the official version were logical, wouldn't this "spindle" have remained? It wasn't grated to shreds by the only part of the airplane massive and hard enough to sever them - the engines - from top to bottom zig-zag style...

On one of four sides of a few floors, probably. Does this explain the absence of an uneven, logical toppling in at least one of the towers? Instead two towers hit differently collapsed identically.

And if there were absolutely no support, no floor, how did those people get to the airliner impact zone/hole in the outer wall?

Actually it was much less than ten floors. Read the report.

The core was not damaged - though NIST theorized that perhaps three of the fifty core columns may have been damaged or weakened in one tower, and further theorized that up to five were damaged in the other.

The report also mentioned temperatures hot enough to weaken the steel may have occurred for several minutes, but the majority of the fire temperatures were on average a little over half that requirement. Even in a foundry, this highest-temperature requirement needs to be applied in a controlled manner for up to three hours before the result is achieved.

It wasn't a large percentage, it was a minor percentage which according to the building engineers and architects was accounted for in the load-distribution design.

The building was made to support it's own weight beyond the extrapolated damage in the NIST report.

Like the NIST report, the Wikipedia explains a part of what happened - which it probably did, it's logical. But they entirely avoid tying together the elements leading up to collapse initiation and the collapse event itself. They leave it up to the reader to assume a conclusion they did not make, that they avoided entirely.

Assuming 15% as the highest hypothesized amount of structural damage as reported by NIST, what is your "70 percent" referring to? That has nothing to do with the WTC towers...

:D

What about the Oklahoma City bombing?

/

One damaged floor didn't fall onto one un-damaged floor. It's more like a dozen floors fell onto "less damaged floors" below it. Because the outer column was damaged, it pretty much affected ALL floors.

Again, your making sound as if the damage was limited. A certain number of the columns were just gone. Once you lost multiple columns, you weaken everything.

It did follow the path of least resistance - down. One floor (or multiple floors) fell down onto the floors below it. You don't drop an entire floor onto the floor below it and have it tip over sideways.

The floors were supported by columns and the core, not the floor below it. In other words, there was no load bearing walls. In fact, there were no walls - the entire space from the core to the outer perimeter was empty. They put walls into to make rooms for the offices, but none of those walls were load bearing at all.

They floated in the air - they were hooked up the outer column and the core, no place else.

You understand the core itself was hollow, had a dozen elevators, bathrooms, support
rooms, right?

The two towers were built the same, and were both hit by airplanes pretty much in the same fashion. Airplanes hit both buildings, damaged columns, weakened or destroyed the core support, and caused massive hour long fires that weakened the now damaged structure.

Sure, totally; I'm sure it was. The building was designed to support it's own weight.

However, the building was not designed to survive an impact, have the outer perimeter destroyed and weakened, and then it wasn't design to have multiple floors crashing down.

Could it support the extra weight? Maybe? But not when most of the support was weakened and the weight was crashing down the way it was.

__________________________________________________ ____________

Media Guy, you can sit here and debate this all you want. The truth is an airplane slice through the buildings, destroying a percentage of the column support and instantly weakening all of the perimeter. The core was also damaged. The damage to the support, the fire that continued to weaken everything eventually lead to one or more floors collapsing onto the floor before it, which was unable to support the load because it too was damaged. It was only a matter of time before it fell.

What about it? I've never given it much thought.

http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5656

That page or wikipedia... which is whackier?

Actually, some interesting posts on the first page...

Yeah, that's a trusthworthy page for sure.

What did Israel have to gain by 9/11? Did Israel want us to invade Afghanistan? How did that benefit them? Or anyone for that matter.

Actually, 15% or less of the perimeter columns being damaged would not affect ALL floors or the core. Where are you getting your specs and stats?

True, if a large number of perimieter columns were compromised top-to-bottom. But they were not. The damage WAS limited, as per engineers' and architects' expected designs...

If that floor were more solid, uncompromised and structurally sound, then yes your top section would meet resistance and either take much more than one-tenth of a second to give way, or present the much more likely amount of resistance that would cause the toppling upper section to tilt towards the side where structure was most compromised and weak.

That's correct. However each floor was buttressed below and above, and supported by the core and the perimeter. No reason for an enitre building to spontaneously lose all structural support, both in the core and the perimieter, and turn to dust and 30-foot column fragments.

And this doesn't explain why the core disappeared, the perimeters shredded, and the whole building was destroyed as though the whole thing was hit by a 100-storey jet plane.

Yes. And no combustibles, and 50 columns thicker than your bathroom, which got thicker the further down you went, and whose shredding can in no way be accounted for by the official theory.

The two airplanes hit in completely different fashion. There is no proof that core columns were damaged, even if it's likely; in fact the impact that could be considered "glancing" had a titanium engine go right through, which removes the possibility that it hit any of the core columns.

An hour-long fire would not weaken steel unless it was approximately 6 times the reported temperatures.

Actually, this is precisely what it was designed to withstand. One of the building engineers is quoted as saying that they could withcstand multiple impacts of this sort, based on the largest airliner at the time, which contained more steel and less aluminum than modern air craft.

Considering the "extra weight" was about 20% of the full mass of the building, Newton, Da Vinci, and the majority of HS physics teachers of the world could not agree with you.

The truth is, the building was designed to take your airplane hit. The "percentage" of the column support was accounted for. The entire perimeter, either around or top to bottom, was not compromised by the impact - as per your favored government theory. The core was not damaged, as per the same theory. The fire was not hot enough long enough to weaken the steel as per your preferred theory.

While one compromised suppot/floor would be unable to resist the load of the upper 20 or so stories, the lower 80 stories would be able to provide resistance; would be able to hold out more than 1/10th of a second per down-crash, and would most likely have sent the downward-moving mass the way of least resistance.

Actually, neither have I, but it was the one conspiracy theory you didn't mention :P

It was also the instigator of the first "Patriot Act"....

:D

Too bad someone wasn't there to call these men conspiracy theorists and retards. These guys were obviously loons. He even said other there might be bombs in other buildings.

Okay, I listened to the first fifteen seconds and they are talking about explosions in the lobby before the building collapsed. YOU THINK? Fireballs that traveled nearly one hundred floors, fires everywhere... Of course shit was exploding.

Really? How could explosions occur in the lobby before the collapse? How could they (as reported by other witnesses) occur before the impacts?

Your fireballs are hypothetical, and could not take out basements. Explain those.

The possible fireballs that you believe in would have descended the elevator shafts (possibly) and taken out either one of the sky-lobbies, the lobby or blown out the doors of the sub-basements. Not all of these, and certainly not the structural bases of the basements.

A fireball is a ball of fire, not an explosive event. How could it have taken out (for example) the huge marble tiles of the walls in the actual labbies?

No explanation for that, if you insist on believing the government conspiracy theory....

:D

Odigo says workers were warned of attack

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...attack-1.70579

"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack. "