What brought the towers down???

[runcible]

Wrong again mr space aliens.

So in a three story building, the 3rd floor might be engineered to a live load of 40 lbs/ft², the second floor is engineered to a live load of 80 lbs/ft², and the first floor is engineered to a live load of 120 lbs/ft²? Sounds odd. The dead load of the structure would be even worse, if each floor had to be able to support the weight of the structure above it.

But lets assume that this is correct and look at the WTC.

Say that the WTC #1 has a weight of 250,000 tons (that's half of the most common estimate!). It looks like the bottom floor of the WTC #1 was 208 ft x 208 ft, or 43264 ft². Assuming that the bottom floor weighs nothing, the second floor would have to be able to support 11,556.95 lbs/ft². That's almost 6 tons per square foot!

It looks like* the long floor beams in the WTC were 60' long¸excluding the thickness of the facade. Lets call it 40', just to be on the safe side. There seems to be a beam every 6'. So, each beam has to carry 6'x40'x11556.95 lbs/ft², or 2,773,668 lbs total. Each end of the steel beam has to support 1,386,834 lbs. That's divided among four bolts -- 2 5/8" bolts at the top of the beam, and 2 7/8" bolts at the bottom of the beam. That's 346,708.5 lbs per bolt. (Technically, a little more on the 2 7/8" bolts, a little less on the 2 5/8" bolts, but...)

Those are some amazingly strong bolts.

Or, alternatively, you are mistaken in believing that each floor can support all of the floors above it.

If anyone wants to run the numbers for 500,000 tons/tower and 50' or 60' spans, feel free. 500,000 tons should double the weight each bolt needs to support. 50' should increase it by 25%. 60' would increase it by 50%.

Just my $.02

* Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm looking at the diagrams of a typical cross section, and I might be misreading the diagram. This is a forum post, not court testimony, and my standards are a little lax. :D

[bigjon]

So in a three story building, the 3rd floor might be engineered to a live load of 40 lbs/ft², the second floor is engineered to a live load of 80 lbs/ft², and the first floor is engineered to a live load of 120 lbs/ft²? Sounds odd. The dead load of the structure would be even worse, if each floor had to be able to support the weight of the structure above it.

But lets assume that this is correct and look at the WTC.

Say that the WTC #1 has a weight of 250,000 tons (that's half of the most common estimate!). It looks like the bottom floor of the WTC #1 was 208 ft x 208 ft, or 43264 ft². Assuming that the bottom floor weighs nothing, the second floor would have to be able to support 11,556.95 lbs/ft². That's almost 6 tons per square foot!

It looks like* the long floor beams in the WTC were 60' long¸excluding the thickness of the facade. Lets call it 40', just to be on the safe side. There seems to be a beam every 6'. So, each beam has to carry 6'x40'x11556.95 lbs/ft², or 2,773,668 lbs total. Each end of the steel beam has to support 1,386,834 lbs. That's divided among four bolts -- 2 5/8" bolts at the top of the beam, and 2 7/8" bolts at the bottom of the beam. That's 346,708.5 lbs per bolt. (Technically, a little more on the 2 7/8" bolts, a little less on the 2 5/8" bolts, but...)

Those are some amazingly strong bolts.

Or, alternatively, you are mistaken in believing that each floor can support all of the floors above it.

If anyone wants to run the numbers for 500,000 tons/tower and 50' or 60' spans, feel free. 500,000 tons should double the weight each bolt needs to support. 50' should increase it by 25%. 60' would increase it by 50%.

Just my $.02

* Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm looking at the diagrams of a typical cross section, and I might be misreading the diagram. This is a forum post, not court testimony, and my standards are a little lax. :D

So you believe that the 20th floor can't support the 90 floors above it. Your logic or lack of it.

Each floor truss supports its own weight plus its static load which is it's share of the weight of the floor pan and office equipment. The 47 core columns are a unit that are constructed first and the floor trusses hang from the core. The core is an integral part of the floor system.

You space alien types want to say the trusses failed and brought down the whole building, but that dog don't hunt. A few floor trusses falling to the floor below on one side of the building wouldn't make a dent in the core structure. The only thing that does that is

EXPLOSIVES

I hope you are locomotive engineer.

[runcible]

So you believe that the 20th floor can't support the 90 floors above it. Your logic or lack of it.

I hope you are locomotive engineer.

I believe that the 20th floor can't support the 90 floors above it.

I believe that the vertical beams that run through the 20th floor can support the 90 floors above it.

Reading comprehension is a Good Thing™.

[bigjon]

I believe that the 20th floor can't support the 90 floors above it.

I believe that the vertical beams that run through the 20th floor can support the 90 floors above it.

Reading comprehension is a Good Thing™.

Writing is a skill that conveys what people mean. Show me in your previous post where you say what you say in this post.

[Silver Scout]

Ahem.

I just wanted to clear things up for those of you that are still unaware ...

You see, these big planes piloted by a buncha dune coons hit the towers and they subsequently fell apart.

There. Now that thats all cleared up we can focus on the more important flouride conspiracy, ziononist mind control conspiracy, haircut conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy, et cetera, et cetera.

Thanx for stopping in though :wavey:

[bigjon]

Ahem.

I just wanted to clear things up for those of you that are still unaware ...

You see, these big planes piloted by a buncha dune coons hit the towers and they subsequently fell apart.

There. Now that thats all cleared up we can focus on the more important flouride conspiracy, ziononist mind control conspiracy, haircut conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy, et cetera, et cetera.

Thanx for stopping in though :wavey:

And building 7?

I know it felt sorrowful at the sight of it's big brethren falling down and on it's own just decided to fall down too.

The space alien theory of 9/11.

[Dude]

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/b7.jpg
Conspiracy theorist say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by Airliners and only had a few fires. It also had a confession from the building owner who said he "Pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence conspiracy theorist are wrong.
As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fig-1-7.jpg
So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorist say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorist use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorist let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites.
Silverstein's Quote:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt)
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt)
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt)
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt)
"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was,but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. (http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm)

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it (http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm). And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html)

This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html)

It mirrors what Silverstein said.
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html (http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html)
And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi)
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders from on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
More from another blogger…
RealityCheck
“(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL!
I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ].
So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree?
(2) As to the term "pull":
Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).
RC.
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, lets review the evidence...
What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
They are interviewing this woman (http://msnbc.com/m/mp/dwvideo.asp?v=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911) with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?
There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out.
Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side to.
Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7pile.jpg
Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".
And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?
"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "In it's own foot print" you might ask. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much as a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.
This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns weakened by the fires.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/7-1.jpg
In the following image the east penthouse falls...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/7-2.jpg
Now the west penthouse falls...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/7-3.jpg
To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/b7debris.jpg
Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7_Collapse_P.jpg
This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.
Below are snapshots from a video taken from the northeast of Building 7 just as it collapses. Note that it has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7f1.jpg
Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7f2.jpg
Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7f3.jpg
If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, as conspiracy theorist point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right.

[runcible]

Writing is a skill that conveys what people mean. Show me in your previous post where you say what you say in this post.

Its not in the parent post, it is my grandparent post in this thread:

Floors don't tend to be engineered to the same load as vertical support members.

Bigjon quoted it in his reply, I quoted bigjon in my reply.

[azxcvbnm321]

What does it matter? What matters is that there are terrorists out there who want us dead, and those who would excuse these terrorists are putting our lives in jeopardy by aiding the enemy.

Osama Bin Laden was right, this country is full of cowards and illogical crazies which is why he thought America would be easy pickings, and why he attacked us in the first place. Cause a few deaths and there'll be those who automatically look for a conspiracy, and will continue to look for conspiracies until Bin Laden can take over and kill the crazies too.

[Halophyte]

of course we could go into NORAD standing down for the first time in history, ordered by Cheney.




Here's one that guarentees me the "government shill" title - between you and I, guess who has a history with NORAD ?

I've gone beyond caring about your inuendo, it's time to send chillls down your CT spine.

Have at it, bud.

.

[Book]

15608

This must be one of the longest-running threads in GIM history
:rolleyes:

[bigjon]

What does it matter? What matters is that there are terrorists out there who want us dead, and those who would excuse these terrorists are putting our lives in jeopardy by aiding the enemy.

Osama Bin Laden was right, this country is full of cowards and illogical crazies which is why he thought America would be easy pickings, and why he attacked us in the first place. Cause a few deaths and there'll be those who automatically look for a conspiracy, and will continue to look for conspiracies until Bin Laden can take over and kill the crazies too.

Bathtubs are responsible for more deaths than terrorists, automobiles kill in multiples of terrorists.

Lets declare a war on bathtubs and automobiles.:rofl: :rofl: :banana: :cool2:

[bigjon]

Its not in the parent post, it is my grandparent post in this thread:



Bigjon quoted it in his reply, I quoted bigjon in my reply.


OK, I'll bite flooring trusses brought down the world trade center buildings 1 and 2.

Go claim your prize, booby,

[Silver Scout]

Bathtubs are responsible for more deaths than terrorists, automobiles kill in multiples of terrorists.

Lets declare a war on bathtubs and automobiles.:rofl: :rofl: :banana: :cool2:

Better yet ... why don't you take a friggen shower, and learn how to drive.

[bigjon]

Hey dude you should go into the demolition business couple a fires and down she comes.

[Dude]

Hey dude you should go into the demolition business couple a fires and down she comes.

My post regarding WTC 7 has more plausibility than the explosive scenario, IMO.

[Penny Lane]

Hey dude you should go into the demolition business couple a fires and down she comes.
LOL!

Just like the time I wanted to cut down a gnarly old tree, I just lit a few fires on different sides.

http://www.units.muohio.edu/dragonfly/save/treeburning.jpg

Then all at once, the branches at the stop started cascading down in a pancake fashion, and the whole thing magically turned into a neat little wood pile!

http://mrpackrat.net/images/wood%20pile%20front.jpg

I'd love to see these supposed "engineers" do the momentum calculations for the pancake theory. Even assuming that there is zero resistance when each floor collapses (impossible), I know they will find that there are at least an extra 3 seconds unaccounted for by the tapes.

[Veritas]

Because we're not a country under Sharia law. Because we allow our women to go outside and show their faces. Because we allow alcohol and other vices in our society. Because we're not like them.

A.K.A - they hate our freedoms. So you have fallen for the old mantra that "the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedoms. Your understanding of world events is about as shallow as your ability to write a complete sentence. Japan is not under Sharia law, allows their women to go outside with their faces shown, and they produce, consume and export some very fine alcohol. Why aren't the "terrorists" attacking Japan? China has an ENORMOUS Muslim population. Why is China not seeing a rash of violent terrorist activities? There are several countries that enjoy the same, if not more freedoms than we do here in America. They are not being attacked. What do you and your 3rd grade level understanding of world events have to say to that?


And of course no one can answer my questions or fault my logic.

:haha: :haha: :haha: SEE ABOVE!

I just found "fault in your logic". As for answering your questions, the only ones you presented are these....
How many times do they have to say this? How many times do they have to bomb and murder before you understand.

Your questions are rhetorical.

I guess this is closed unless someone can come up with an actual answer to what I've stated above.

It's been re-opened.

I know it's hard to face logic, but wake up and face the truth, there are people out there who want to kill us and those are the same people who took out the Towers.

I agree. The people responsible for taking down the WTC towers did want to kill us. They had an agenda and carried it out to advance their agenda for global control.

That's why none of you dare to venture into Iraq or Gaza. If your conspiracy is true, there's no reason why you should be targetted, why you have anything to fear, it's all fake and set up. But you know the truth. You know that you will be kidnapped and beheaded. You know there is no conspiracy, only a bunch of terrorists who want us dead.

I will only say this to you once. Your level of intelligence doesn't even rival Forrest Gump if you actually believe what you've just written (in 3rd grade English, albeit).

The terrorists in Iraq have nothing to do with the acts of 9/11. I will not go into Iraq because there is a real threat to Westerners. There are terrorists. Yes, they behead people. Yes, they are fighting a war against a foreign invader. They have every right to fight back. However, they are not responsible for 9/11. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

[Dude]

LOL!

Just like the time I wanted to cut down a gnarly old tree, I just lit a few fires on different sides.

http://www.units.muohio.edu/dragonfly/save/treeburning.jpg

Then all at once, the branches at the stop started cascading down in a pancake fashion, and the whole thing magically turned into a neat little wood pile!

http://mrpackrat.net/images/wood%20pile%20front.jpg

I'd love to see these supposed "engineers" do the momentum calculations for the pancake theory. Even assuming that there is zero resistance when each floor collapses (impossible), I know they will find that there are at least an extra 3 seconds unaccounted for by the tapes.

I see you didn't read my post, or maybe, based on your two pics above, you cannot understand what actually is plausible. I by no means can truly say as fact that planted explosives were definitely not involved, but neither can you say that they were. You find a legitimate instance of someone (anyone of thousands - thousands!) that either saw or were involved with the planted explosives, I'll flop. It's truth, man. Aesop had nothing on some of you guys.

[Large Sarge]

Here's one that guarentees me the "government shill" title - between you and I, guess who has a history with NORAD ?

I've gone beyond caring about your inuendo, it's time to send chillls down your CT spine.

Have at it, bud.

.

Halo,

I could care less where you worked, its your ignorance and stubbornness that is so frigging annoying.

notice I did not call you stupid, I think in other areas you are quite adept, with 9/11 you seem pretty ignorant.

if you did used to work at NORAD, call some old co-workers and ask them why Cheney had them "Stand Down" on 9/11?

[runcible]

Bathtubs are responsible for more deaths than terrorists, automobiles kill in multiples of terrorists.

Lets declare a war on bathtubs and automobiles.:rofl: :rofl: :banana: :cool2:

Fires kill about 3,000 people each year.

I once figured out how much it would cost to buy smoke detectors for all households in the US, as well as the yearly battery replacement cost. The cost over 10 years was a fraction of the Department of Homeland's security yearly budget.

Hmmmm.

[Penny Lane]

I see you didn't read my post, or maybe, based on your two pics above, you cannot understand what actually is plausible. I by no means can truly say as fact that planted explosives were definitely not involved, but neither can you say that they were. The last pic is a bit of a stretch. A more correct picture would have a bunch of cut timber strewn about the place.

There is still the issue of the asymmetrical fire, asymmetrical supports and asymmetrical damage leading to uniform collapse at freefall speed. That simply beggars belief. Three independent variables maps in three dimensions adding up to a combination of 1 at the right moment is simply ridiculous.

Here is the sort of collapse that I might expect:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/asia/magazine/99/1004/highrise.jpg

http://pr.water.usgs.gov/public/venezuela/images/img17.jpg

That's what happens when you have non uniform damage and stresses on buildings.

Couple that with the freefall speed, the squibs seen exploding up the sides of ALL the buildings, the flashes and explosions reported by numerous firefighters, the explosive damage seen in the WTC lobby as filmed by the Naudet brothers with not a single puff of black soot from airline jet fuel...

And again, do the momentum calculations to prove pancake collapse, please. That's something that any engineer or physicist can do. And I can tell you now that it will not predict the speed of the WTC collapse as it happened on the day.

I'll even do a sample calculation to get you started.

Remember your conservation of momentum law?

p1f + p2f = p1i + p2i
and p = mv (p momentum, m mass, v velocity).

According to the pancake theory, you have a floor 1 impacting with floor 2, causing the severing of floor 2, whereby the two floors stick and proceed to accelerate towards floor 3 and do the same thing until there are no more floors.

If the mass of floor 1 is m1, and the velocity of floor 1 when it hits floor 2 is m2, then the momentum of floor 1 at the time it hits floor 2, p1, is m1 * v1.

The momentum of floor 2 is p2 = 0. This is because at the stage right before the collision, floor 2 has no velocity.

Now, since momentum is conserved, what is the speed of floor 1+2 as they stick and accelerate towards floor 3, just after the collision?

since p (total, initial) = p (total, final) according to conservation of momentum,

m1 * v1 = (m1 + m2) * v(final)

therefore, v(final) = ( m1 * v1 ) / (m1 + m2).

Now, if floor 2 is the same mass as floor 1, v(final) is half of what v(initial) is. If every time a floor (or collection thereof) collides with another floor and loses up to half the velocity it initially had, after which it accelerates at 9.8m/s/s, then please explain how such a building is going to collapse at anywhere near freefall speed.

And please note, this is being ubergenerous to the pancake theory, in that there is no energy assumed lost in severing floor 2 from its supports.

After you realize that the the official explanation is actually physically impossible, then the only other explanation that makes any sense is the controlled demolition hypothesis. And of course, it correlates with all the circumstantial evidence, as said before:
-the squibs seen exploding up the sides of ALL the buildings,
-the flashes and explosions reported by numerous firefighters,
-the explosive damage seen in the WTC lobby as filmed by the Naudet brothers with not a single puff of black soot from airline jet fuel
-molten steel found in the base of the WTC six weeks after 9/11.
-sulpher on such steel consistent with military grade thermite (thermate IIRC)
-symmetrical collapse into own footprint as all buildings did (not one single topple and no solid core visible)
-massive fine dust produced composed of building materials such as concrete

[runcible]

Why do so many people in this thread assume that the interior collapsed at the exact same moment as the exterior?

[Penny Lane]

Why do so many people in this thread assume that the interior collapsed at the exact same moment as the exterior?
Hint: usually they are bolted together somehow.

[runcible]

Hint: usually they are bolted together somehow.

Usually, they aren't quickly losing altitude.

[azxcvbnm321]

What brought the towers down? How many times do these guys have to claim responsibility before you folk get it? Amazing that people who admit to the attacks, and continue to attack are still not believed. How do you explain these releases on Islamic websites? More conspiracy? Give it up, the more you defend this conspiracy, the more bullshit you have to invent. How do you explain the beheadings and continued terrorism? Wouldn't it be easier for the government to go in and occupy a defenseless Iraq rather than invent more attacks and for what? Come on people. No, go back to the videos again and ignore my questions.


(CNN) -- Al Qaeda identified a Saudi militant, who was killed in 2004, as the 20th hijacker in the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, according to a statement published Tuesday on an Islamist Web site.

"Turki bin Fheid al-Muteiri -- Fawaz al-Nashmi -- may God accept him as a martyr (was) the one chosen by Sheikh Osama bin Laden to be the martyrdom-seeker number 20 in the raid on September 11, 2001," the statement said.

Al-Muteiri was not able to join the other hijackers in time for those attacks, the date of which had been pushed forward, the group said without elaborating.


Go to http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/13/911.hijacker/index.html for the entire story

[RealityCheck]

When I first heard the explosives conspiracy, I googled a few stories about demolitions of skyscrapers.

The time it takes to wire up a smaller skyscraper is on the order of weeks. This includes knocking out walls, cutting (weakening) beams, placing the charges and connecting them with wiring. It does not include concealing that this has been done.

Maybe the WTC towers were wired for demolition at construction, but that's a long time to keep a secret, especially when there are tenants remodeling.

The official story mostly makes sense, from what I can tell. Steel is a rather funny material. Years ago (before 9/11) I was really interested in post&beam and log home construction, and I remember seeing a picture of a partially burnt home with wooden beams supporting an I-beam. The wooden beams were charred, but still strong enough to support the I-beam, which had weakened and sagged. It didn't melt (the fire wasn't hot enough for that), it just sagged. AFAICT, the official story was that the beams sagged in the heat, which put too much force on the connections at the ends of the beams, and and the beams tore free, dropping a floor onto the floor below it. Then the floor below it, which all of a sudden had a huge live load placed on it, failed, and the cycle repeated. (I have a nice expensive college textbook that deals with the forces involved. Pre-9/11, so it should be illuminati-free! Actually, I have two textbooks about this -- statics and dynamics.)

The only conspiracy theory that is required for the tower's collapse is a conspiracy on the part of architects and engineers to cut construction costs and maximize floor space in what was one of the tallest inhabitable man-made structures on earth.

PS: Darkside -- if you throw a motolov cocktail through a window, how hot would the frame of the window be?

Two points to consider:

1. It has been proven that in the Oklahoma City bombing that explosive cutter charges were used to cause the damage to the building's columns. It is a slam dunk case, totally proven (Heck the news even reported that explosives were carried out.) so appearently it is possible to rig up a demolition under everyones noses. The feds did it once, its not unthinkable they could do it again.

2. Their is a video of molten metal pouring from the tower right before the collapse that could not have been aluminum because of its color. (Not to mention it was gushing out.) There was the witnesses of molten steel as well as the extreme hot spots seen by NASA. Also a photo has shown a steel column cut diagonally with molten metal on both the inside and out side. Columns are cut this way so that they slide off each other rather then remelt together. Professor Stephen Jones was able to obtain a sample of the steel of the WTC and had it independently tested and it came up positive for the biproducts of thermate (Thermite plus sulfur used to cut steel.).

Here is a pic of the cut beam:

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/2531/thermitecutwtcsteel4uk.th.jpg (http://img102.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thermitecutwtcsteel4uk.jpg)

Comments?

[Penny Lane]

Usually, they aren't quickly losing altitude.
Occasionally, my socks are blue.

How's that for a non sequitor?

[Penny Lane]

azxljfsljdfsljdf, I could put up a website and claim I am the 25th hijacker. It would not make it true.

At the same time we have footage and highschool physics that tell us we are witnessing an impossible event as explained by the official story.

[runcible]

Here is a pic of the cut beam:

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/2531/thermitecutwtcsteel4uk.th.jpg (http://img102.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thermitecutwtcsteel4uk.jpg)

Comments?

Do you happen to have a source for that picture, as well as a date? A better shot of the cut beam would be interesting as well.

I tried googling for it, and I can't find information about where and when it was taken.

Oddly, I found some "experts" who claim that the column was not cut with a torch, but said it was thermite. Thermite is 4500F, an acetylene torch is 4000F. I wonder how they could tell the difference... I looked up pictures of cut I-beams on google, I can't tell the difference, but I don't know what alloy the beams were made out of either, and I'm not an expert in this area.

I would like a source for that picture, just to make sure I'm not looking at a beam that was cut during the cleanup. A bigger picture would be nice as well.

I think I'll dig out some scraps of steel that were cut with an acetylene torch tomorrow. They are much thinner than the WTC beams, but I'd like to look at them.

Perhaps someone can explain how thermite could cut through the beam without showing any of the effects of gravity. I did look up some google videos of thermite. Pretty stuff. Cuts through a lot of thick metal. But the pictures I saw had gravity hold the thermite in place. I can imagine a few ways to attach thermite to a vertical column, but nothing that would result in a cut that seems perpendicular to the surface of the beam. I'm not saying that it is impossible, or even improbable. I just don't know and would like to learn.