September 11

Forum Sponsor
jc100 said:
As I mentioned above..it doesn't need to get hot enough to melt stuff, just hot enough to soften the steel.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. There is some truth to what you are saying. But since not all of the steel would be exposed to the extreme temperatures and the column would be of considerable mass my guess is a minimum of 10T per column. All that massive amount of steel would absorb quite a bit of heat before it was all hot enough to see any appreciable losses in strength, especially considering the margin of safety that would be built into the structure. So the way I see it you need to achieve really high local temperatures to possibly cause buckling in one of the flanges, or again, really high local temperatures so that it would be hot enough to be conducted through the column in that time period, rather than be disippated by the shear mass of the structure and all connected parts.

At work on the stay ring flanges where we weld steel anchors that are about 5 inches thick, we have about a two inch fillet to weld. It takes about an hour to heat the area to be welded with a ceramic heater to about 500 degrees F. It takes about 100 passes to weld. I've gone and felt the steel structure after a guy has been welding all day, and I find it remarkable how well that giant mass of steel is able to absorb all that energy the guy has been pouring into it all day. Pretty remarkable stuff. Mind you, It's 1 guy welding per 15T of steel.

I'd be pretty curious how much energy a big steel column would absorb from the open blaze. My guess is it would take quite a bit of jet fuel to get there. Pretty interesting stuff either way. And I still think my gut feeling is somewhat right.
 
Here's the problem with conspiracy theorists -
They have their points of view, present evidence, cite sources etc. But when presented with opposing evidence, even when gleaned from the so called sources that they use as reference, they somehow claim that it's wrong, biased or fluffed up for the conspirators benefit.


Why can't folks look at the presented evidence from all sides and draw their own conclusions, rather than have a biased point of view even when opposing evidence is presented.


This is the same problem with having a debate on religion. No logic or rationality need be applied. You don't have to be a scientist, but at least some sense of logic would dictate that if the possibility exists of credible sources getting it wrong, then there should be the possibility of a conspiracy theorists sources not being bullet proof.


But they will defend their view point regardless of any contrary but coherent evidence/explanation thrown their way.


Doubt everything else, other than what you believe to be true. That seems to be their mantra.
 
Specific heat of iron: .108 KCal/(KG C)
10,000KG needs 1080kcal/ degree celcius X4.184 Kcal/KJ = 4518KJ per degree celcius.

Let's say the structure fails at 80% stength. This would require 800 degree F or 427 degrees C to achieve. assuming the beam was at an ambient temperature of 27 degrees then we need to warm it up by 400 degrees celcius
So we would need 4518KJ/degree C X 400 degrees C = 1,807,200KJ not a crazy amount of energy by any stretch of the imagination.

Jet Fuel has 118700 btu/gal= 125,235 KJ/gallon
Open air burning temperature 600 degrees F which is a far cry from a perfect combustion temperature of 1800 degrees F. So this is a big assumption on my part since I haven't looked into this for more than 10 minutes, bet lets say at 1/3rd of the temperature it's only releasing 1/3rd of the joules. So 125,235KJ/gallon divided by 3= 41,745KJ/gallon of fuel of releasable energy.
Now we would need only 43 gallons of fuel to heat our column to this temperature under the assumption that 100% of the energy is absorbed.
Thermal conductivity of steel is 33kj/(hr x degree F x ft). So in 1 hr the steel could absorb.... ahhh I am bored of this already.
But if someone figures out how much thermal energy is lost through heating the ambient air around the column and then what is transferred to the column we can figure out how long it would take to absorb the energy and the correct amount of fuel to get a column to fail.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-metals-d_152.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html
 
caboose483 said:
2 minutes of Googling tells me that Richard Gage of AE911truth is not someone who I would trust.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


The entire group of Architects and Engineers involved, are from all over the world. They aren't consipracy theorists....they are experts in their fields. None with anything to gain, and no axe to grind that I can see. They aren't nameless faces online with a blog penned by " Bombsquad9/11" or something like that. These are all highly educated, successful engineers and scientists with thousands of years of cumulative experience in this exact fields to study a tragedy of this type, and all are comfortable enough in their doubt to face the cameras and say who they are, and what they doubt, and what they'd like answers to........in fact I would guess that this group of scientists is probably a more appropiate group than NIST themselves would be to do the investigation to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Freestyle72 said:
Specific heat of iron: .108 KCal/(KG C)
10,000KG needs 1080kcal/ degree celcius X4.184 Kcal/KJ = 4518KJ per degree celcius.

Let's say the structure fails at 80% stength. This would require 800 degree F or 427 degrees C to achieve. assuming the beam was at an ambient temperature of 27 degrees then we need to warm it up by 400 degrees celcius
So we would need 4518KJ/degree C X 400 degrees C = 1,807,200KJ not a crazy amount of energy by any stretch of the imagination.

Jet Fuel has 118700 btu/gal= 125,235 KJ/gallon
Open air burning temperature 600 degrees F which is a far cry from a perfect combustion temperature of 1800 degrees F. So this is a big assumption on my part since I haven't looked into this for more than 10 minutes, bet lets say at 1/3rd of the temperature it's only releasing 1/3rd of the joules. So 125,235KJ/gallon divided by 3= 41,745KJ/gallon of fuel of releasable energy.
Now we would need only 43 gallons of fuel to heat our column to this temperature under the assumption that 100% of the energy is absorbed.
Thermal conductivity of steel is 33kj/(hr x degree F x ft). So in 1 hr the steel could absorb.... ahhh I am bored of this already.
But if someone figures out how much thermal energy is lost through heating the ambient air around the column and then what is transferred to the column we can figure out how long it would take to absorb the energy and the correct amount of fuel to get a column to fail.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-metals-d_152.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html
Click to expand...

That's all well and proper (I assume, not gonna double-check your data). But the bottom line is no passenger jets have ever crashed into skyscrapers before, except in Flight Sim. And no skyscrapers have ever collapsed like that before. The circumstances seem propicious to the outcome, especially considering all that we don't know. Maybe the damaged insulation allowed the fire inside and concentrated it around the columns rather than insulating them? Maybe it was flammable fire insulation? This existed on planes, and was one of the causes of the crash at Peggy's Cove.

It's perfectly reasonable to imagine that the damage that was purely a result of the impact of the planes alone, caused the towers to collapse.

Except for building 7. It's NOT reasonable to believe that the falling debris from towers 1 and/or 2 caused 7 to go down, certainly not in the manner that it did. It seems to me it would be a better use of time to examine that mystery than the one-of-a-kind disasters of the twin towers.
 
It would be foolish to think that the twin towers was a seperate disaster to the WTC7
 
short stop said:
Not to mention, the sheer vastness of an explosive-demolition conspiracy is mind-boggling. How easy is it to plant demolitions in a high-rise? How many building maintenance workers and security guards would need to be in on something like that? And then on top of it to disguise the whole thing with freaking AIRPLANES flying into the building?

It's needlessly complicated and ludicrous. If you were going to demo the buildings, just demo them and blame it on Bin Laden anyways.

Just because not every detail can 100% be accounted for, doesn't mean that there is an elaborate conspiracy at play.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna preface what follows by saying that I'm undecided about 9/11 and I simply don't know enough about it to come to a conclusion. But I will say that I've met quite a number of professors who believe it was a conspiracy. And from what I gathered from the professors, a lot of them are banking on the same point that many of the people are arguing (the melting point of steel and whether or not jet fuel's enough to make it happen).

But from a psych standpoint, it makes more sense for the plane to be included in the tragedy than just demo-ing the building and blaming the staff/lack of building security. It's much easier to get away with something when there's a better scapegoat (a plane + terrorists is a much better alibi than 'hundreds of people were coerced).

But we can also explore it as if explosives were planted. If a bunch of people (it'd have to be a ******** in this case) had to be bribed, it's still plausible considering the resources available. A psych analysis (with behavioural history included) coupled with a **** load of money can be enough to make someone keep their mouth shut for the rest of their life. Everyone has a point that they sell out at (and it's not necessarily just about money)...it's just a question of how high. And a lower-middle-class person with sound morals isn't beyond bribing. If they can't be bribed with money, imagine how effective "say something and we'll kill your family" can be...

So basically, if it were "demo the [buildings] and blame it on Bin Laden anyways" vs crash the planes, demo the buildings, and blame it on Bin Laden...it makes a lot more sense to choose the latter.

Also, they wouldn't need to plant explosives on every floor, would they? Just enough to get a domino effect on collapsing floors.

I'm not saying that anything's plausible...just that it's not impossible and as far-fetched as it may initially seem.
 
Best part is that controlled demolition of such a massive building would take months to execute... and people are suggesting it was done in secret... in a working building, with tens of thousands of employees and staff... in the middle of NYC. :lol:


What was that thing about the simplest explanations?


Planes hit the buildings and caused them to fall. You can argue about lab results in perfect settings with perfect formulas for steel melting points and burning rates of jet fuel... but anybody with half a brain should know that real world results can sometimes be completely unforeseen. Shoddy construction 50 years ago? A project manager or site super changed some small details randomly during construction? The shipment of steel for one or two floors was slightly flawed and nobody noticed? Welds weren't done properly or faulty fasteners were used? Fire-proofing material wasn't applied 100% properly and evenly? The complexity of such a large construction project is immense. Testing "perfect" models expecting the same results is retarded.

A million-and-one contributing variables that cannot be accounted 'in the perfect world'.
 
knowledge said:
I'm gonna preface what follows by saying that I'm undecided about 9/11 and I simply don't know enough about it to come to a conclusion. But I will say that I've met quite a number of professors who believe it was a conspiracy. And from what I gathered from the professors, a lot of them are banking on the same point that many of the people are arguing (the melting point of steel and whether or not jet fuel's enough to make it happen).

But from a psych standpoint, it makes more sense for the plane to be included in the tragedy than just demo-ing the building and blaming the staff/lack of building security. It's much easier to get away with something when there's a better scapegoat (a plane + terrorists is a much better alibi than 'hundreds of people were coerced).

But we can also explore it as if explosives were planted. If a bunch of people (it'd have to be a ******** in this case) had to be bribed, it's still plausible considering the resources available. A psych analysis (with behavioural history included) coupled with a **** load of money can be enough to make someone keep their mouth shut for the rest of their life. Everyone has a point that they sell out at (and it's not necessarily just about money)...it's just a question of how high. And a lower-middle-class person with sound morals isn't beyond bribing. If they can't be bribed with money, imagine how effective "say something and we'll kill your family" can be...

So basically, if it were "demo the [buildings] and blame it on Bin Laden anyways" vs crash the planes, demo the buildings, and blame it on Bin Laden...it makes a lot more sense to choose the latter.

Also, they wouldn't need to plant explosives on every floor, would they? Just enough to get a domino effect on collapsing floors.

I'm not saying that anything's plausible...just that it's not impossible and as far-fetched as it may initially seem.
Click to expand...

It still sounds highly implausible to me that so many average citizens could be paid off to be complicit in the greatest tragedy in US history, and watch fellow citizens and co-workers die en masse. I'm sure there are many an average joe who could be paid off with a large some of $$, but not everyone. Not everyone would agree to be part of such a diabolical plan, and they would have blown the lid off something like this. Someone by now would've talked.

Not to mention, I'm not sure the risk vs payoff ratio would be in the conspirators favour. Imagine hinging one of the greatest conspiracies of all time on the hope that someone wouldn't eventually talk? And all so that they can add some airplanes into the mix for some added *oomph*?

Again, I'm sure there are many factors that can't 100% be explained. But I don't see a mountain of evidence pointing to a controlled demolition, yet somehow this idea gets thrown around without putting any real, logistical thought into how a plan like that would realistically be carried out.
 
I'm not going to get time to go through the NIST report until at least next week. Wake for my friend's mom tonight, helping him out last night, then prep and head to Calabogie tomorrow. Just not going to happen very quick, so I bow out for a few days...
 
so say if explosives were planted which group did it? The terrorists? Highly doubt it since it would be tough for them to get access to certain areas inside the twin towers I'm assuming and why would they suicide in the first place. And how come I haven't heard Al Qaida brag about planting explosives? These guys like to take responsibility for everything but nothing was said about planting explosives.

The Americans to create a pretext for war? Any one that intentionally burns down their house or business for insurance purposes knows enough to do it during off-peak hours to minimize human casualty. And if the American Government did it than that means they are working in collusion with the terrorists steering the planes into the buildings and pentagon?

The simple logic is 2 planes full of jet fuel impacting the building caused exponential loads on the floors below to collapse. The buildings weren't built or tested with planes crashing into it.
 
Shaman said:
I'm not going to get time to go through the NIST report until at least next week. Wake for my friend's mom tonight, helping him out last night, then prep and head to Calabogie tomorrow. Just not going to happen very quick, so I bow out for a few days...
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You don't have time to go through the report that you have been using to "substantiate" your claims?

Confused.

psycho44 said:
so say if explosives were planted which group did it? The terrorists? Highly doubt it since it would be tough for them to get access to certain areas inside the twin towers I'm assuming and why would they suicide in the first place. And how come I haven't heard Al Qaida brag about planting explosives? These guys like to take responsibility for everything but nothing was said about planting explosives.

The Americans to create a pretext for war? Any one that intentionally burns down their house or business for insurance purposes knows enough to do it during off-peak hours to minimize human casualty. And if the American Government did it than that means they are working in collusion with the terrorists steering the planes into the buildings and pentagon?

The simple logic is 2 planes full of jet fuel impacting the building caused exponential loads on the floors below to collapse. The buildings weren't built or tested with planes crashing into it.
Click to expand...

Well, technically the buildings were actually designed to withstand a plane impact but they never considered the effects of the subsequent fires.

The plane strikes did cause a tremendous amount of damage. It's very plausible that the fireproofing on damaged columns was compromised. If the fires were burning hot enough (this point is still subject to some disagreement here) then the NIST explanations seem reasonable to me.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
 
caboose483 said:
What are you talking about? You don't have time to go through the report that you have been using to "substantiate" your claims?

Confused.
Click to expand...

Not until next week. I figure that was pretty clear.
 
psycho44 said:
The Americans to create a pretext for war? Any one that intentionally burns down their house or business for insurance purposes knows enough to do it during off-peak hours to minimize human casualty. And if the American Government did it than that means they are working in collusion with the terrorists steering the planes into the buildings and pentagon?
Click to expand...

While I've got five minute: There are number of people on record that they were warned to stay out of the buildings that day. There are also substantiated reports that some such as Guilliani (sp?) were told to stay out of the WTC7 response center as well. 3,000 people is nothing to the sociopaths that run the military industrial complex... there are nearly 1M Iraqis dead and at least three times that many that are displaced. They've passed laws that Hitler never had the guts to pass, such as the NDAA.
 
Shaman said:
Not until next week. I figure that was pretty clear.
Click to expand...

Ok. Let us know when you get around to reading the report that you've referenced repeatedly.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
Shaman said:
There are number of people on record that they were warned to stay out of the buildings that day.
Click to expand...

Sounding more like a spam email by the minute.
 
Google is your friend.

"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) later announces that they are investigating the trading of shares of 38 companies in the days just before 9/11. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the New York Stock Exchange sees “unusually heavy trading in airline and related stocks several days before the attacks.” All 38 companies logically stand to be heavily affected by the attacks. They include parent companies of major airlines American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United, and US Airways as well as cruise lines Carnival and Royal Caribbean, aircraft maker Boeing and defense contractor Lockheed Martin. The SEC is also looking into suspicious short selling of numerous insurance company stocks, but, to date, no details of this investigation have been released."

--

"Shortly before 9/11, people attending an unnamed mosque in the Bronx district of New York City are warned to stay out of lower Manhattan on 9/11. The FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force interviews dozens of members of the mosque, who confirm the story. The mosque leadership denies any advanced knowledge and the case apparently remains unsolved."

--

"A veteran detective involved with post-9/11 investigations later claims that rumors in New York City's Arab-American community about the 9/11 attacks are common in the days beforehand. The story “had been out on the street” and the number of leads turning up later is so “overwhelming” that it is difficult to tell who knows about the attacks from secondhand sources and who knows about it from someone who may have been a participant. After 9/11, tracking leads regarding Middle Eastern employees who did not show up for work on 9/11 are “a serious and major priority.”"

--

"A few days before 9/11, a Seattle security guard of Middle Eastern descent tells an East Coast friend on the phone that terrorists will soon attack the US. After 9/11, the friend tells the FBI, and passes a lie detector test. The security guard refuses to cooperate with the FBI or take a lie detector test. He is not arrested—apparently the FBI determines that while he may have had 9/11 foreknowledge, he was not involved in the plot."
​
--

"A sixth-grade student of Middle Eastern descent in Jersey City, New Jersey, says something that alarms his teacher at Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School. “Essentially, he [warns] her to stay away from lower Manhattan because something bad [is] going to happen,” says Sgt. Edgar Martinez, deputy director of police services for the Jersey City Police Department."

--

"Eight hours prior to the attacks, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a warning from “my security people at the airport,” advising him to be cautious in traveling... Brown is scheduled to fly to New York the next morning. The source of the warning, and why it was personally issued to Brown, remains unknown."

--

"Data recovery experts later looking at 32 hard drives salvaged from the 9/11 attacks discover a surge in credit card transactions from the WTC in the hours before and during the attacks. Unusually large sums of money are rushed through computers even as the disaster unfolds. Investigators later say, “There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million. They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the mainframes were destroyed.”"

--

That was quick, dirty and not even close to complete, due to time constraints... probably my last post on gtam until monday at least.

BTW, here's an incomplete but fairly good timeline of 9/11 link, with quite a few mysteries to ponder:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=complete_911_timeline_world_trade_center&timeline=complete_911_timeline
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom