SR1419
Senior Member.
But it wasn't "three for three"- more like 3 for 7 if you count just WTC buildings...or even greater you account for all the other buildings damaged.
9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?
- Thread starter lee h oswald
- Start date
- Status
But it wasn't "three for three"- more like 3 for 7 if you count just WTC buildings...or even greater you account for all the other buildings damaged.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I never proposed any scenario . . . I am not a structural engineer or builder or demolition expert . . . I simply find the NIST findings suspect . . . what I thought I saw with my own eyes and what I understand of air defense and disaster preparedness practices, common sense, etc don't add up to me . . . sure one can speculate about plausible explanations all day long . . . so far I am not convinced we have the full truth about what happened before, during and after Sept 11, 2001 . . .
http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm
Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up
Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up
A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Three high rise buildings significantly damaged and set on fire on 9-11 . . . three buildings completely collapsed . . .
I do not think it plausible that they fell down as they did due to impact and fire damage alone and especially in the case of WTC7 which reportedly fell down half an hour before it actually did.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Sorry- that should read 10 high rise buildings were significantly damaged....3 buildings completely collapsed.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Were all 10 high rise set on fire and burned for hours ?
But what about WTC1. Just looking at that alone - you previously said you did not think the fires burned long enough to bring it down. After seeing the photos above, have you changed your mind?
Mick, I honestly wish I could but I can't. The pictures I downloaded from the link were not appreciably different to the many I have previously seen.
It may help if you picked some out with some detail about how long the fierce fire lasted but there is evidence out there that Edna was in that hole where the plane went in, which should have been the hottest part of the building, i.e. the seat of the fire, for around 40 minutes.
Also when you take into consideration how many other buildings have burned for many many hours even up to six days and still not collapsed it is just unlikely and the evidence does not stack up according to many scientists and engineers.
All that and then all the rest of the intrigue, lies and plots that went on and continue to issue from the government... I really cannot see how an objective person could possibly trust the government or their agencies/scientists who underpin their official conspiracy theory.
That video of Aaron Russo is powerful but simply confirms existing knowledge about the NWO.
Allegedly Russo was asked, 'why do you care about them, what are these people to you'? it about sums it up... we are chips on the table unfortunately
That was not "the seat of the fire". The plane flew INTO the building, the seat of the fire was inside. And see there's fire on both sides of her, above her. Just 60 feet away there's some 10 foot high flames.
Okay, let's get more specific. I showed you this photo of a raging inferno engulfing several entire floors, some flames 30-40 foot high.
And you reply:
And then I demonstrate how this photo is AFTER WTC2 FELL, so it is the fire after burning for over an hour.
Do you accept that the above photo shows the fire after it has been burning for over an hour?
Last edited:
HappyMonday
Moderator
?
Where's my tinfoil gone, I need protection from this(thats a rolleyes)
You make a much better argument when you keep this kind of posturing to a minimum.
SR1419
Senior Member.
The only thing that video confirmed is that he has similar beliefs to you.
You cannot consider his hearsay claims as a confirmation of facts.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have no problem with Aaron Russo . . . I have an issue with Nick Rockefeller . . . he is possibly a fraud or a very distant relative . . . he isn't mentioned in the family tree at all . . . Aaron may have been played . . .
Jazzy
Closed Account
That's a step too far on this thread, George.
Leslie Robertson stated "We calculated for the IMPACT of a 707 lost in fog. We couldn't and didn't face considering the effects of the fire from the burning fuel it might have contained. We didn't know how to do that." Not word-for-word, but conveying the meaning he intended.
If you make the mathematical calculations comparing the weights of the two different aircraft (Boeing 707 and 767), the fuel and passengers they carried, the approach speeds, you WILL find that the energy of the Boeing 767s that struck the towers was thirteen times greater than that of a putative, lost, Boeing 707. Nineteen if you include the HEAT energies involved with 24,000 pounds of kerosine.
The towers were brought down by the impact and fire. They both sagged, after their impacts, off the vertical, seriously transferring loads to fire-susceptible columns, which needed more than their safety factors would allow to prevent them from instantaneous unstable buckling collapse when their supporting floors bowed and detached.
[...] the lady was standing UPWIND at the aircraft entry point. The fire burnt where the wreckage and office contents were, at the FAR end, DOWNWIND, which is the direction ALWAYS taken by fires. She was standing at the coolest point she could stand in.
Because you can place your hand on the base of your stove without burning it, does that mean the stove is out?
If you want to heat box column steel 5/16" thick to 600 deg C, where it loses half its strength, then an hour in a muffle furnace at 1,100 deg C (the outside of which is shown in Mick's pictures) is long enough.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Jazzy, I am not sure what you are saying but . . . please read the following . . .
Please read the attached white paper from Skilling the document image is shown on this link . . . take note of the parts underlined in red . . . . http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC.html
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
Jazzy
Closed Account
Approach speed isn't cruise speed.
565 mph at sea level isn't cruise speed.
One airplane was proposed to be near empty of fuel.
The other was actually near full of fuel.
Any more telling points?
The VELOCITIES and the FUEL LOADS are crucially different. Let alone the fact that the 767 is heavier.
The kinetic energy of a moving object depends on the square of its velocity. Twice as quick means four times the energy. The 767 was two and half times as quick as the 707, and, weight for weight, had therefore 6.6 times the energy. But it was heavier*, and carried 22,000 pounds more fuel.
Those factors add up. Your argument is gone. The towers received impacts 13 times greater than those theorized in the design process.
* I don't agree with the weights in those calculations either. Robertson would have used an early 707 for his figures. The 767s weren't lightweight versions.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So??
You know that "white paper" was written in 1965, right? And that there's no other evidence of this "600 mph" analysis.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yE...page&q="far less daring structurally"&f=false
As it turned out, they were basically correct. The towers did not collapse from the plane impact.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yE...page&q="far less daring structurally"&f=false
As it turned out, they were basically correct. The towers did not collapse from the plane impact.
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?
The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
I don't doubt it. Skilling has discussed it, there's the "white paper" telegram from Roth. I imagine they did at least some calculations to demonstrate the impact would not "push over" the building, or damage enough structural elements to cause a collapse. Remember though this was in 1964, so complex finite element modeling was not possible, computers were very simple back then. The most powerful computer in the world in 1964 was the IBM NORC, with about a millionth the power of an iPhone.
But anyway, it's kind of irrelevant. Doing the analysis NOW on state-of-the-art equipment would also show you that a 600 mph impact would not cause the towers to collapse - and indeed that's exactly what happened.
(emphasis mine)
It fell because of the fires (although obviously having some broken columns did not help). Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Correct . . . the issue is not could they withstand the collisions . . . that is moot . . . should they collapse later because of the collisions and the resulting fire is the real issue . . .
Jazzy
Closed Account
So Robertson calculated using the maximum take off weight, did he? How interesting. Why would he do that?
They obviously didn't, George.George B said:
They hung around, progressively going out of shape, transferring loads, and bowing floors until detaching floors released the restraints on external columns, allowing them to lose their buckling stability.
All this activity was due to the FIRE. Ten tons of kerosine, the contents of six office floors... for WTC1 & 2 it was just a matter of a short amount of time.
WTC7 burned for five hours past its insulation time limit.
All three buildings were observed to go progressively out-of-true, bowing significantly before failure. All these buildings rely on being vertical and true, that their loads may be evenly-distributed, and if they aren't then loadings change and may even reverse at places within their structure. There will always be somewhere weak on which the structure depends. If it is in the fire then it's a matter of time. If it's not in the fire, but the fire is elsewhere allowing other columns to transfer part of their load away, then creep will continue to transfer loads to it until it fails, so it's still a matter of time.
How was that achieved using either thermite or explosives? The answer is that neither can achieve it. They are POINT sources.
But it can be achieved using a fire because both EXPANSION (WTC7) and CREEP (WTC1 & 2) are heat-driven. Fires across floors are NOT point sources, but general.
A little bit of logic... ...push down on that straw.
What do you think? Is it plausible? You've seen in the photos how extensive the fires were. You know that steel suffers both from thermal expansion and weakening. It seems reasonable that some columns were damaged or destroyed, and some had their insulation stripped. There was also no audio of demolition style explosions during or before collapse. There's also the incredible difficulty of flying the plane into the building at a particular floor, and then initiating collapse at that floor.
I mean, it all seems perfectly reasonable to me. I can understand people who WANT to believe in a conspiracy, but it seems to me that to a neutral observer, the official story makes perfect sense. The alternate stories (controlled demolition) make no sense.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't have a specific theory on how it happened to the three buildings in question . . . seems to me if according to NIST the fire brought down 1 & 2 because of stripped insulation from the support columns by the aircrafts impacting the buildings and 7 came down not because of stripped insulation but by the failure of an overheated expansion joint on one critical column . . . yet this never happened before or since in a complete building collapse . . . I am not sure I buy it . . . don't know what happened but think there is much room for doubt . . .
Ok, so can we now leave the planes out of it and accept that they had little to no effect, apart from being the source of the fires, in the collapse of any of the 3 buildings? Is that agreed?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems they initiated according to NIST a chain of events that resulted in a catastrophic collapse of three of the tallest buildings in the US . . . Why? . . . poor construction concepts in light of 20/20 hindsight . . . inadequate insulation . . . fate . . . or other?
Yes but apart from the 'initiation factor' can we all agree that they were not responsible for the collapses?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That for me is a big leap . . . if one could ignite thousands of pounds of jet fuel in the towers any other way with exterior air sources . . . I guess . . . I will admit NIST does imply what you are saying . . .
Content from external source:
The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../wtc_about.cfm
Clock
Senior Member.
I have a few sources that prove that the towers fell due to a mix between fires an a 767 plane, here goes:
Now, the towers may have survived better if the entire thing was done in a tube in a tube design, but they were actually designed like this:
instead of:
There was no concrete onto the building of the world trade center, as it would have probably been costly. I think the reason why they were built in this matter was because of their height, and the material that was available at the time. (just my 2 cents...)
Now about the fire: some say the building was fire proof, some say it wasn't.
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html[/URL]
Now, the towers may have survived better if the entire thing was done in a tube in a tube design, but they were actually designed like this:
instead of:
There was no concrete onto the building of the world trade center, as it would have probably been costly. I think the reason why they were built in this matter was because of their height, and the material that was available at the time. (just my 2 cents...)
Now about the fire: some say the building was fire proof, some say it wasn't.
Sorry Clock but that does not prove anything. There is no 'proof' one way or the other, simply competing theories and it basically boils down to, do you beleive the 'official theory' or not.
No. Because they damaged some columns, and they stripped insulation. Now it might be possible that uncontrolled fires would eventually bring down the buildings. But if there were JUST fires, then the collapse would at least have taken a lot longer to arrive, and possible might never have arrived.
And the planes did not simply "initiate" fires - that makes it sound like they were nothing more than a box of matches. In addition to stripping insulation they also damaged sprinkler systems, and they opened huge holes in the building allowing far more oxygen in than in a regular fire, and they also clumped office debris in concentrated areas, not to mention the thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
Clock
Senior Member.
My post states that the Twin Towers were only tested for 707 planes,without fuel. They could not test for 767 planes because they did not exist in 1967.
I understand what you mean by 'proof' but my post states that they could not have tested for these planes because they did not exist, which was a point tat some people were making here.
HappyMonday
Moderator
Were you already a conspiracy advocate when you decided you didn't believe the 'official' 9/11 story?
I will try to answer adequately without 'rambling or going off topic', as I feel a simple 'no' is inadequate and unhelpful. I also feel, without giving too much personal information, it is helpful if we could each understand each others motivation to some extent. I feel it helps to make sense of the whole and lets be honest... motivation is the key to everything.
So, books such as 1984, Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies, did resonate with me at some level at a young age but I did not fully grasp the import of such works, merely ascribing them to 'comments' on socialism etc. So no I was not a conspiracy advocate from that but merely perhaps 'slightly more alive to political motivations' than some.
Naturally, life dictates one must buckle down with nose to the grindstone so to some extent one tends to be more accepting of 'the realities of life', bearing out Maslow's Pyramid theory. So in short, I was, like most, 'asleep' up to about a year or 2 after 9/11. I just thought like most people, listened to the same mockingbird media, held normal concerns but 'got on with life'.
Initially I dismissed the theories that were starting to emerge about 9/11 and cover ups and political machinations. I thought it would be easy to disprove all this CT stuff but the more I looked the more I uncovered. 9/11 was my 'major wake up call', my 'red pill' if you like. I admit, I clung on to the belief that there was no merit to the conspiracy theories for quite some time after the facts lead me to intellectually believe otherwise.
I, like most, found it difficult and extremely uncomfortable to entertain that 'our leaders', the leaders of the 'free west' could be as devious, power hungry and manipulative as 'the tyrants we opposed'. And I will concede that possibly they are not as bad, but the evidence proves they are not that dissimilar.
And then we come to the internet, the great library of instantly accessible information, which allowed everyone access to hitherto 'not generally available information'. A product of DARPA no less... given freely for the benefit of mankind.
Kinda blows my theories out of the water doesn't it! Maybe not, perhaps the turn it would take was not envisaged or perhaps the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. e.g
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/12/starbucks-twitter-campaign-uk-highjacked/
Which leads us to this site and it's motivation. Is it simply 'just some guy with an interest in debunking', if so then why not debunk the bunk on both sides?Hijacked Starbucks Twitter Campaign in the UK Ends Up an Epic Cluster F-F-F Frappuccino
Why is it I am unsurprised when a thread that reflects badly on authority and does not fit with the officially promoted perception, gets side tracked to the 'off topic and ramblings' section. And even worse it gets drastically edited to remove adverse information and legitimate comments. It just appears the 'CT shooter did not use an assault rifle', thread was too embarrassing.
I moved it because it was degenerated into heated impolite arguments. I can move it back if it calms down. I only edited out posts that crossed the line of politeness. No "adverse information" was removed.
I'm more than happy to debunk bunk wherever I find it. However you seem to be suggesting that there should automatically be the same amount of bunk (and hence debunking) to both support and deny your argument. I'm afraid I've generally found a lot more bunk on the conspiracy theorist side of most argument. Certainly that's the case with 9/11. On the one site there's the official story, which contains almost no bunk beyond minor errors, and on the other side there's the conspiracy theories, with their wild ideas of nano-thermite, "pyroclastic flow", terrible understanding of physics, and intimations perfectly executed mind-bogglingly risky plans.
I mean, if you were to look at the OS, then what would you say was the biggest piece of bunk in there?
Alternatively, if you look at my debunking, or any 9/11 debunking, then what was one thing that is wrong?
Mick, its your site your rules, but I do not agree that no adverse information was removed. All the stuff about police brutality and the systemic use of torture was legitimate.. out there stuff... which deserves debate IMO even if it gets slightly warm. I thought it was a bit heated but I would not classify it as impolite. But as I say thats just my opinion and it is your site
- Status
Similar threads
