Collapse of the Twin Towers

Discussion in '9/11' started by Alchemist, Aug 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    Let's see what was inside these buildings.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    • Each tower contained 96,000 tons of steel
    • 820 tons of steel per floor
    • 47 huge vertical steel core columns in the middle
    • 240 perimeter steel columns
    • 287 steel columns in total
    Jet fuel doesn't burn anywhere near the temperature hot enough to melt steel. Steel weakens by 50% at only 1200 degrees.

    This is directly from NIST report:
    (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

    This is because jet fuel burns up QUICK and most of what you saw burning were office debris. In fact, MOST of the jet fuel exploded OUTSIDE when the 2nd plane hit as we can see here:

    [​IMG]

    What we saw burning for most of the time were office debris which were controllable. We've all unfortunately seen the famous pictures of victims jumping out of the towers, but this happened during the first 15 minutes while the jet fuel was still burning. Later, we have photographs of victims STANDING in the impact holes.. BEGGING for help.. how could they survive heat that would melt through giant steel columns and girders? They wouldn't be able to...

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And the firefighters were on record saying the fires were controlled. The temperatures had dropped dramatically, a lot of fires were extinguished, the people were in the open wounds begging for help.
    "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin Ryan

    Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. This is directly from the UL which certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires.

    This is from Firefighter Engineering... one of the oldest engineering publication in United States... who went public as well calling for an investigation and criticizing the government for destroying the evidence:
    Frank Demartini, Construction Manager, specifies that the towers were specifically designed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts of jets



    Yet we've been told that fire was able to cause the 47 huge core columns in the middle to fail in unison at close to free-fall acceleration via "pan cake theory". If it's correct that the weight of the floors above was responsible for the collapse, then how come the basement columns were still in tact?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's what is know as "an argument from personal incredulity".

    See:
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

    Guidelines for new threads
    (guidelines, not rules - there are always exceptions).
    1. Focus on individual claims of evidence, not broader theories
    2. Title the thread with something that identifies that claim, preferably with an appropriate tag word/phrase describing what the first post does (e.g. "Claim:" , "Debunked:", "Fake:", "Need Debunking:" (only use descriptors that you can back up)
    3. Describe what the claim of evidence is, who made it, where they made it, what the known facts are, what are the disputed facts, and what is the broader theory that this claim is supporting
    4. Debunk it if possible. Explain what the problems with the claim are - both evidence and conclusions. Link to other sites that discuss the claim.
    5. Ask specific questions about what you don't know about the claim
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If you want to continue please pick one of the points in your OP, briefly discuss the standard debunker arguments, and then explain why you think they are wrong.
     
  4. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    NIST report admits that there is no evidence that temperatures reached anywhere close to what would be required to weaken or melt the steel. Most of the jet fuel burnt out very quickly.. most of it exploding outside of the 2nd tower in a giant fireball... and there were people standing in the impact holes along with firefighters confirming that fires were extinguished and controlled as high as 78th floor. NIST doesn't even understand what happened.

    This is what the WTC Construction Manager said about the design:
    Despite this intense matrix netting of steel with HUGE 47 VERTICAL CORE COLUMNS in the middle, the towers came down with NO RESISTANCE crushing through more than 70,000 TONS OF STEEL. For this to occur all of those 47 vertical core columns would need to fail simultaneously. How is this possible as a result of fires and asymmetrical structural damage?
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2013
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    NIST has a FAQ, which is a good starting point.
    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

    The towers did not come down with no resistance, so your last question is moot. The resistance was about 0.1g, as I remember. And it's an average of a very complex system of millions of events.

    The lower portion of the tower could hold up a large static load, but the dynamic load of the moving upper floors vastly, VASTLY exceeded that.

    It's like the difference between resting a weight on something, and dropping the weight on something. Like, say, a 30lb weight on an empty coke can. It can easily support it, but once it's moving, it can't stop it.
     
  6. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    Their own report says it was free-fall. The airplane hit above 92 floor. How does that adequately explain how 14,760 pounds of steel crushes through 75,440 still-intact, highly robust tons of steel in lower part of the tower at almost no resistance (0.1g) as if falling through thin air?
     
  7. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    NIST explains it in their report and here.

     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's very clearly not collapsing at free fall speed, as the bits that fall off it fall faster than the collapse. The black beams here are falling at free fall. The tower is not.
    upload_2013-8-9_16-5-27.
     
  9. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Specific paragraph from above. Emphasis mine.

    Not exactly free fall the whole way.
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And that uncollapsed core:
    [​IMG]

    and in larger context:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  11. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    And for WTC 1&2 NIST examined the steel.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Jeez, I should just redirect all 9/11 questions to the NIST FAQs, then lock the thread :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    Just like you can redirect questions pertaining to illegally wiretapping reporters to Eric Holder's FAQs. :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2013
  14. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    If Eric Holder had 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse, then yeah.
     
  15. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    Of course when they were under the direction of authorities with an agenda...

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Hang on now. You can't just toss out points and then ignore the answers. What about the free-fall issue? Do the rebuttals above change anything for you?
     
  17. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    As I've posted above... even NIST admits that the fires were NOWHERE close to the temperatures required to WEAKEN the steel, let alone melt it. NIST's collapse conclusions don't fit observable facts. They can't account for the complete failure of the 47 IMMENSE vertical core columns in the middle.

    [​IMG]

    One little complication...

    [​IMG]

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  18. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Where's the bit admitting that 'even NIST admits that the fires were NOWHERE close to the temperatures required to WEAKEN the steel, let alone melt it.'?
    And I don't think anyone thinks the steel needed to melt to cause the failure.
     
  19. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
     
  20. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    This is from the VERY LINK he posted of the FAQ's right above where he got that paragraph:

    “Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.
    -NIST
     
  21. Keef Wivanef

    Keef Wivanef New Member

    I'm not big on conspiracy theories BUT!

    The columns supporting the building were massive.
    Could the kinetic energy of the plane deliver enough energy to destroy enough of the columns to cause a collapse?
    The engine parts would probably be the only parts substantial enough to do much damage but I've never seen any footage that shows any of those columns had been taken out.
    The building didn't fall down right away so I think we can probably exclude that possibility.

    Much of the fuel load was ejected from the building and exploded in a fireball.
    Given the thermal mass of steel and concrete would act as a massive heat sink it seems unlikely that the fire would have weakened the structure sufficient to cause the collapse. ( I said unlikely not impossible)

    The free fall argument doesn't bother me too much. If the entire supporting structure at the level of impact did suddenly collapse then it seems reasonable that the sledgehammer effect of the upper block dropping 10 foot or so onto the next floor would be pretty devastating on the floors below and the rate of fall probably be just a bit slower than free fall.

    Chances of both towers (and WT7) falling perfectly vertically into their own footprint?
    Not impossible but it would need a simultaneous failure of virtually all the supporting columns.

    Now, how about those blobs of white hot metal dug out by the excavators two weeks 7/11?
    That was a bit strange!

    " Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

    I find that very hard to believe!
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2013
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Maybe because you are just making up a big list of random claims based on your own recollection?

    Why don't you quote an actual claim of evidence that you think is wrong, check for debunking, and start a new thread on it, explaining why the claim is wrong.
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.